Earlier year update for PAYE

Didn't find your answer?

I have a client whose 2022/23 PAYE was incorrect. The earnings, of one of the employees was incorrect as was the PAYE and NIC. I have the HMRC EYU software and have found out you can no longer do earlier year updates using this.

Can anyone tell me how you can now correct these errors?

This post is not related to my previous post and it relates to a client I picked up off my ex employer. My ex employer had made made the errors on their RTI submissions.

 

Replies (17)

Comments for this post are now closed.

avatar
By DKB-Sheffield
06th Mar 2024 17:45

Slightly behind... EYU ceased 2019/20.

You need to file an FPS.

Not sure exactly how this is done in BPT though!

Thanks (1)
Replying to DKB-Sheffield:
avatar
By Kosher
06th Mar 2024 19:30

DKB-Sheffield wrote:

Slightly behind... EYU ceased 2019/20.

You need to file an FPS.

Not sure exactly how this is done in BPT though!

I filed a FPS to reduce an employee's(wife of business owner) pay from £16,000 to £10,000 resulting in PAYE £686 being refunded to employee and the employer getting same back from HMRC. HMRC have now demanded the employee repay them £686. This means that the HMRC still keeps the tax and it means the employee has paid tax on £10,000 earnings, the employee has no other earnings. Cannot get in touch with HMRC because of the length of time it takes for a phone call.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Kosher:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
06th Mar 2024 19:41

Were 2 lots of £686 refunded by HMRC? Only one should have been.
Are you a bit new to how this operates?.
HMRC are correct, probably, as they trusted that your client would not be as dubious as to pretend that the wages were misfiled, but only after the wife got her refund.

How on Earth did the client [***] this up? Was your submission a genuine correction or a bit of hindsight, playing loose and fast with the truth?

Odd how you only mention tax and not National Insurance. If wife was getting a pension then it would have been coded, and mess up the arithmetic.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Kosher
06th Mar 2024 20:54

Paul Crowley wrote:

Were 2 lots of £686 refunded by HMRC? Only one should have been.
Are you a bit new to how this operates?.
HMRC are correct, probably, as they trusted that your client would not be as dubious as to pretend that the wages were misfiled, but only after the wife got her refund.

How on Earth did the client [***] this up? Was your submission a genuine correction or a bit of hindsight, playing loose and fast with the truth?

Odd how you only mention tax and not National Insurance. If wife was getting a pension then it would have been coded, and mess up the arithmetic.

£686 was deducted from wife's pay and the husband paid it over to HMRC. The wages were amended and so no £686 was deducted from wife's pay and the husband received £686 back to offset against other PAYE outstanding. Now they've asked for £686 back off wife:

1)Husband pays and gets tax back - so that balances out
2)Wife has £686 tax deducted from wage and then by reducing wages gets it back - so that balances out
3) Wife pays HMRC £686 - then that becomes £686 tax on £10,000

Result is HMRC have been paid tax that is not owed.

I have had to pay the client £686 in compensation - therefore I reduce my income by £3,430 because it is me that has paid the tax. I am only a poor state pensioner, whose income is below £12,570 because of the expenses I have to pay out.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Kosher:
avatar
By FactChecker
06th Mar 2024 23:25

I've no idea (and frankly no longer care) whether you are completely out of your depth or just winding up everybody here.

But this post alone (let alone several other similar ones) show that you should not be offering to run a Payroll for anyone in any circumstances - and certainly not where there are historical errors to correct.
It's not that the solutions are particularly complex, but explaining them to someone with such a poor apparent understanding of the workings of PAYE and RTI would take more time than makes sense via a public forum.

My only advice? Stop before someone gets hurt (if that's not too late).

Thanks (3)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By Kosher
07th Mar 2024 02:04

Perhaps you could send me £50,000 for my clients, so I can retire. The previous accountant has made several lash ups with clients and this is the last one to be sorted. I paid the client's tax back to HMRC because I cannot afford to lose there annual fee income. I got the clients off the previous accountant at cut price to pay off amounts he owed to me, his business was in danger of going under at that point. I won't be claiming back the £686 tax I paid to HMRC because it was the tax on profits earned from my dissolved limited company. So there is no dodgy business or fraudulent trading taking place. It represents unpaid Corporation Tax which wasn't paid on dissolution.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Kosher:
RLI
By lionofludesch
07th Mar 2024 07:10

Kosher wrote:

I have had to pay the client £686 in compensation - therefore I reduce my income by £3,430 because it is me that has paid the tax.

What?

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
stonks
By WinterDragon
07th Mar 2024 08:59

Kosher had to pay a client £686, Kosher has then reduced his income by £3,430 because they have paid the client's tax for them. What's so hard to follow? My mate Dave explained it to me down the pub

Thanks (4)
Replying to WinterDragon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
07th Mar 2024 09:17

Yes - but ..........

Oh, never mind.

Thanks (0)
Jennifer Adams
By Jennifer Adams
07th Mar 2024 12:06

There is no need to be so nasty Factchecker.

If you dont care - why comment?

Thanks (2)
Replying to Jennifer Adams:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
07th Mar 2024 13:53

Try reading all the 'kosher' postings.
Factchecker was being generous to a fault
The CGT comments are the most disturbing.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Kosher
07th Mar 2024 15:36

Paul Crowley wrote:

Try reading all the 'kosher' postings.
Factchecker was being generous to a fault
The CGT comments are the most disturbing.

What CGT comments? I brought myself up to date on CGT and I checked out whether the income was under income tax or capital gains and worked it out to be income tax. Client had already accepted he had a large bill to pay and I charged handsomely for filing an SAR. It was useful training for a property capital gains tax return I have just completed. I had not done a CGT return, under the new regime and not done a CGT return for 25 years - so a lot of training was necessary and it was worthwhile.

This question was about PAYE, where the previous accountant had lashed up the RTIs and had not sent the client the payslips. The client just paid his wife £10,400 a year so there was no tax, it came to my attention what the previous accountant had done when I did the client's accounts and I requested the previous accountant to send me all his payroll workings.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Jennifer Adams:
avatar
By FactChecker
07th Mar 2024 14:05

Nasty is a strange interpretation of what I wrote ... unless you consider it nasty to point out to someone when they are clearly out of their depth, which I regard as both professional and in this case necessary.

And, as you must surely realise if you re-read my post, the "don't care" was in relationship to whether or not the OP's post is a wind-up ... but I very much care about the continuing provision of services where those are based on such a poor understanding of the underlying legislation and procedures (see other threads).

Thanks (3)
Replying to Jennifer Adams:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
07th Mar 2024 15:18

Jennifer Adams wrote:

There is no need to be so nasty Factchecker.

If you dont care - why comment?

Ignoring whether Factchecker's tone was appropriate or not, I hate this sort of policing of what people can post.

If you think a comment breaches the site rules, report it. If you disagree with what someone says, express that disagreement (and I mean more than a simple accusation of being nasty. Everyone has different meanings for that). But no-one but the site staff have any place just telling anyone not to post.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Jennifer Adams:
avatar
By Kosher
07th Mar 2024 21:00

Thank you Jennifer. It was extremely rude of Fact Checker. Found out why he is so rude, proud and arrogant.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Kosher:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
07th Mar 2024 21:19

hint

Thanks (3)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Kosher
08th Mar 2024 09:21

Hugo Fair wrote:

hint

Thanks (0)