Share this content
7

CJRS - "previously eligible" wording changed?

Didn't find your answer?

Did the guidance for reference pay periods change wording at some point?

For an employee of many years, previously not furloughed, I believe the reference pay is last pay period prior to 19 March 2020. Latest ICAEW guidance has example of employee Betty which agrees.

However some articles e.g:
https://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/coronavirus-job-retention-sc...
says
"For an employee who meets the criteria of the extended scheme but was not previously furloughed, alternative calculations of reference pay and usual hours must be used"
That seems wholly wrong?

and the first HMRC guidance: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extension-to-the-coronavirus-...
says
"For an employee who meets the criteria of the extended scheme but was not previously eligible for CJRS, the alternative calculations of reference pay and usual hours must be used."
Slightly different wording, is it just talking about RTI dates? 

An employee on Feb RTI who was never furloughed until now meets the critera of V3 and was previously eligible for V1 (as per RTI dates) but worked during that period (doesn't that make them previously not eligible???).

Am I confusing myself? Am I just overworked? 

I will read the treasury direction this weekend but don't have the head for it right now.

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

profile
By yelsnew
20th Nov 2020 16:14

Also this bit from HMRC:

The reference period is the last pay period ending on or before 19 March 2020 for employees who either:

1 ) were on your payroll on 19 March 2020, that is you made a payment of earnings to them in the tax year 2019 to 2020 which was reported to HMRC on a Real Time Information (RTI) Full Payment Submission (FPS) on or before 19 March 2020
2) you made a valid CJRS claim for in a claim period ending any time on or before 31 October 2020

Why is the second point there?
It doesn't seem to change anything? To claim for any of the previous CJRS didn't that employee need to meet criteria number 1 anyways?

Is it not just employees on 19 March RTI is 19 March reference?
Or is the talk of whether or not they were on CJRS previously for a situation I'm not thinking of?

Thanks (0)
Replying to yelsnew:
avatar
By the_drookit_dug
20th Nov 2020 16:29

I noted that too, I think it's just sloppy drafting. 2nd point is redundant.

Thanks (1)
Replying to yelsnew:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
20th Nov 2020 17:36

Returning reservists from active duty, and a few others satisfy 2 not 1

Thanks (0)
avatar
By the_drookit_dug
20th Nov 2020 16:32

I'll put my hands up and admit I got it wrong on an initial read through - similar to the first link you provide.

Looks like the wording of the Policy Paper made it easier to read it the wrong way, although on re-reading it's fairly clear.

I put it down to reaching my furlough scheme saturation point.

Thanks (1)
Replying to the_drookit_dug:
profile
By yelsnew
20th Nov 2020 17:04

"furlough scheme saturation point"

Ha! I love it

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Wanderer
20th Nov 2020 16:35

yelsnew wrote:

I will read the treasury direction this weekend but don't have the head for it right now.

This.
Really don't know why you are bothering to read and interpret and compare different guidance. It's only the Treasury direction that matters.
Thanks (1)
Replying to Wanderer:
profile
By yelsnew
20th Nov 2020 17:07

....because it's really long!

You're right though, thought I could save some time and read the simpleton guidance but end up more confused.

Not the first time to be between a rock and a hard place in 2020.

Will read the direction.

Thanks (0)
Share this content

Related posts