Share this content
0
124713

If a casual worker is paid under the threshold, do i have to register their employment?

If a casual worker is paid under the threshold,...

Didn't find your answer?

Search AccountingWEB

I am a sole trader and am looking at paying someone to help me with a few aspects of my business. They will only be paid for a few hours work a week (and not every week, just when I need an extra pair of hands) and the pay will be well under the PAYE and NICs thresholds.

My question is, do HMRC need to be informed of this casual work? Also, if I were to pay someone who only works part time in another job what happens then?

Thanks in advance.

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
12th Jan 2014 16:10

Will they sign a P46?

Declaring the income from your employment as their only source of income. If so and if their pay is below the threshold and you have no other employees above the threshold, then no registration is required. If they have another job then register as an employer and deduct tax at basic rate.

An enormous faff for a few hours a week........

 

Thanks (4)
avatar
By Liiwii
12th Jan 2014 17:36

Thanks

Thank you. I have a few people lined up and one of the best candidates is someone who also works part time elsewhere unfortunately.

So, to clarify, if they are not in any other employment (eg. a student) I don;t have to do anything?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By MDK45
12th Jan 2014 18:33

I seem to remember you are allowed to pay people out of petty cash with no record keeping if its below a certain level? Perhaps somebody could elaborate or correct me on this point?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Liiwii
to Mike Bath
12th Jan 2014 18:57

Any help greatly appreciated!

MDK45 wrote:
I seem to remember you are allowed to pay people out of petty cash with no record keeping if its below a certain level? Perhaps somebody could elaborate or correct me on this point?

Yes please, clarification of this would be great!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nutwood
to 356B
13th Jan 2014 07:44

Scary

Liiwii wrote:

MDK45 wrote:
I seem to remember you are allowed to pay people out of petty cash with no record keeping if its below a certain level? Perhaps somebody could elaborate or correct me on this point?

Yes please, clarification of this would be great!

@memyself-eye has given you the correct position.  You may not like the answer, but you'll have to live with it.
Thanks (1)
to Mike Bath
13th Jan 2014 08:38

Not the case

MDK45 wrote:
I seem to remember you are allowed to pay people out of petty cash with no record keeping if its below a certain level? Perhaps somebody could elaborate or correct me on this point?

This is so untrue.

Thanks (2)
to Mike Bath
13th Jan 2014 08:44

Normal payroll operation

MDK45 wrote:
I seem to remember you are allowed to pay people out of petty cash with no record keeping if its below a certain level? Perhaps somebody could elaborate or correct me on this point?
I suspect you will find this is just the situation of paying someone with no other job below the LEL. Before the advent of RTI the record-keeping was restricted to a year end form saying you had casual workers if you were registered for PAYE. Under RTI these workers would now be reportable if you were registered, no matter how much, and in what way, they were paid.

If the OP is taking on an employee with another job, they are out of luck when it comes avoiding PAYE registration.

Thanks (0)
13th Jan 2014 09:09

EL Insurance

The OP should also take out EL insurance if they are engaging an employee, even on such an adhoc basis. Perhaps drafting the engagement to be a sub contract, which allows the engagee flexibility in assisting could bypass the problem.

Not easy but doable.

 

D

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Liiwii
13th Jan 2014 09:58

Thanks again

Thank you everyone, it looks like I might have to go down the internship route until I can offer someone regular work to make the faff of PAYE worthwhile!

I had no idea taking on a little extra help was so difficult.

 

Thanks (0)
to Livepay
14th Jan 2014 13:20

Difficult?

Liiwii wrote:

Thank you everyone, it looks like I might have to go down the internship route until I can offer someone regular work to make the faff of PAYE worthwhile!

I had no idea taking on a little extra help was so difficult.

​Is it really that difficult? It's more than nothing but it's not a lot.

Thanks (0)
avatar
13th Jan 2014 10:56

Watch out for the internship route, you might be breaking minimum wage rules.  Unless it is a true work experience (e.g. shadowing you etc) and not doing work that should be undertaken by either yourself or a paid employee then minimum wage probably applies. 

Thanks (3)
13th Jan 2014 11:15

barmy!

I have a client who was interviewing 4 people for a job in her shop, one of which already had a 20 hours per week job in a different shop.  On being told this news, she ruled that person out of the process!  Registering as an employer and operating payroll would have nearly doubled her accountancy costs.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Liiwii
to atleastisoundknowledgable...
13th Jan 2014 12:02

interested in...

mr. mischief wrote:

I have a client who was interviewing 4 people for a job in her shop, one of which already had a 20 hours per week job in a different shop.  On being told this news, she ruled that person out of the process!  Registering as an employer and operating payroll would have nearly doubled her accountancy costs.

Just wondering (if it's not too nosey!) how she is intending to pay the person who gets the job without registering as an employer? Sounds like we are in a imilar position!

Thanks (0)
By 0098087
13th Jan 2014 12:35

I would also get anyone to sign a P46 so you have paper evidence that they've said they have no other job.

Thanks (0)
13th Jan 2014 13:33

Explanation

Currently she is one of several clients who:

1.  Are operating as sole traders or partnerships, hence no need to put a director's salary through.

2.  Pay all staff below the LEL.

3.  Have P46s on record for all staff, with "this is my first job" ticked.

So no requirement to operate PAYE.

Thanks (1)
13th Jan 2014 13:49

Not a P46 any more!

The P46 was replaced in April 2013 by the Starter Checklist - almost identical information, but all on one page.

However, the point is that even if you may not have to register for a PAYE scheme, every employer still has to be aware of the PAYE requirements and to operate the appropriate PAYE procedures - in this case, getting the employee to complete the statement about it being their only job on the P46/Starter Checklist and then, keeping the signed form.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Liiwii
13th Jan 2014 14:01

Thank you both Mr Mischief and Euan, that is very helpful. Lots to think about here!

Thanks (0)
By 0098087
13th Jan 2014 15:05

Oh I know it was replaced but I like that form signed!

Thanks (0)
avatar
14th Jan 2014 09:19

me too!

Focusses the mind of the employee who 'might' have income from elsewhere.

Thanks (0)
By 0098087
14th Jan 2014 09:25

When it comes to employees..always good to have a signature whatever HMRC say.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By alesmel
15th Jan 2014 13:22

Real Time Information
Taken from HMRC:

"How the changes affect you?

You still operate PAYE in the same way but you must submit the payroll information you keep to HMRC on or before the day you pay your employees.

You use a Full Payment Submission (FPS) to do this.

Your payroll software will generate the new reports you need and submit payroll information online. These include details of:
•the amount you paid your employee(s)
•deductions, such as Income Tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs)
•starter and leaver dates if applicable

You need to include the details of all employees you pay, including those who earn below the NICs Lower Earnings Limit (LEL), for example students.

You no longer submit end-of-year forms P35 and P14 and the starter and leaver process is simplified. You continue to give your employee a form P45 (employee parts) when they leave but you no longer send forms P45 (part 1) or P46 to HMRC. Instead you must report all starter and leaver information via your payroll software each time you pay someone."

Thanks (1)
15th Jan 2014 13:38

@alesmel

If you have a PAYE scheme, you must report the payments to all employees even if there are no PAYE deductions and the pay is less than the NI LEL.  Much of this thread has been concerned with the fact that you are not required to have a PAYE scheme if all your employees are paid less than the NI LEL and have no other jobs (or pensions) - if you don't have a PAYE scheme, you don't submit RTI reports of any payments to employees.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By J.R.BOX
15th Jan 2014 13:39

I looked at something like this issue

a couple of years back. From what I understood at the time, there is a maximum limit of £100 per annum per person for ` Casual Payments ' where HMRC didn't need to be informed. Anything more and it was something to report or record for future inspection. 

Hope this helps.

Thanks (0)
to daviddaniels
15th Jan 2014 13:48

Not seen this

J.R.BOX wrote:

a couple of years back. From what I understood at the time, there is a maximum limit of £100 per annum per person for ` Casual Payments ' where HMRC didn't need to be informed. Anything more and it was something to report or record for future inspection. 

Hope this helps.

I've not seen anything like this. Are you sure it wasn't somebody talking rubbish? If you have a link please provide. You always need to record who you make payments to so you can avoid any problems with HMRC.

These are the rules now:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/payerti/getting-started/register.htm#1

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By J.R.BOX
to Tim Vane
15th Jan 2014 14:52

Sorry peter, can't find anything at the moment

petersaxton wrote:

J.R.BOX wrote:

a couple of years back. From what I understood at the time, there is a maximum limit of £100 per annum per person for ` Casual Payments ' where HMRC didn't need to be informed. Anything more and it was something to report or record for future inspection. 

Hope this helps.

I've not seen anything like this. Are you sure it wasn't somebody talking rubbish? If you have a link please provide. You always need to record who you make payments to so you can avoid any problems with HMRC.

These are the rules now:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/payerti/getting-started/register.htm#1

 

 

 

 

It was in response to an enquiry and I seem to remember that there was, in fact, an individual de-minimis limit for HMRC record keeping and notification. I'm quite old now, so please don't rely on my answer. My findings at the time served to dissuade the client from ever paying `casuals', so I was happy.      

Thanks (0)
avatar
15th Jan 2014 16:12

Registration

As soon as you first employ someone, you will need to register as an employer with HMRC if any of the following is true:

you're paying them at or above the PAYE thresholdyou're paying them at or above the National Insurance Lower Earnings Limitthe employee already has another jobthey are receiving a state, company or occupational pensionyou're providing them with employee benefits

Thanks (0)
avatar
By smallbeancounter
15th Jan 2014 17:33

My experience

I have been running a small tourist attraction for 20 years. We employ a lot of part-time casual workers, mainly less than 18 years old, plus a few students in the summer vacation. It used to be easy. My wife did the wages using paper (no software costs), the employees signed a form stating that they were in full-time education, and we paid cash. When the employment/PAYE rules changed last year we employed good accountants to investigate every possible way of continuing the old arrangement legally. There was none. We explored every idea that we had ever heard of, trawled the internet, and read all the HMRC materials very, very carefully. We even looked at converting the students to self-employment status even though in our hearts we knew that wouldn't work (of course, it doesn't). We now pay everyone monthly, by BACS, and comply with the RTI filing regime rigorously. A few employees moaned and I think one did leave for another "cash-in-hand" job. Our employment costs have gone up quite considerably. So my advice is, forget about fiddling anything. There are no viable fiddles left. If you employ anyone you MUST follow the rules whether they work for you one hour a week or 40, whether they are there every week or only occasionally. And I endorse the point made above - make sure you have Employer's Liability Insurance cover - it's the law.

IMHO anybody who starts a small business employing anyone nowadays is mad, unless it is a big money-maker. Only big well-established businesses can cope with the current regime.

Thanks (1)
to Mr_awol
16th Jan 2014 09:02

Poor choice of words?

smallbeancounter wrote:
Our employment costs have gone up quite considerably. So my advice is, forget about fiddling anything. There are no viable fiddles left. If you employ anyone you MUST follow the rules whether they work for you one hour a week or 40, whether they are there every week or only occasionally. And I endorse the point made above - make sure you have Employer's Liability Insurance cover - it's the law.
If you're going to take offence, it might be best not to use words that imply you were acting illegally before, and saving both yourself and your employees money doing so. RTI has just changed the reporting of PAYE, not how PAYE itself operates. If you were engaged in "fiddles" that resulted in tax that was properly due not being paid in the past, then I have no sympathy for you.
Thanks (0)
By 0098087
15th Jan 2014 18:56

I know it's just disgusting where the government expects everyone to pay the right tax..

Thanks (1)
avatar
By smallbeancounter
to lionofludesch
15th Jan 2014 22:13

@0098087

oo98087 - if your comment is directed towards me I assume you are trying to be sarcastic. If so, your attempt fails miserably because the tax we and our employees pay is exactly the same: nil. We never evaded any tax; we didn't even avoid any. The old rules simply allowed casual workers who were students to be paid in cash weekly without deductions provided they stayed below the thresholds for NI and income tax, and the process did not require any complicated software or fees. Now, to comply with the new rules, we have to pay someone to do it for us. The point I was trying to make is that nobody can now employ anyone even if they are below the thresholds for NI and income tax unless they jump through the hoops of RTI, and pay the associated costs. This just adds to a lot of other complications and costs, which are dissuading lots of small businesses from employing anyone. I know an electrician and a computer systems engineer who both have enough work to employ an apprentice but they have told me they wouldn't even consider doing so now - it's all just too difficult.

Thanks (0)
to Lone_Wolf
16th Jan 2014 14:24

No PAYE scheme = No RTI

smallbeancounter wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that nobody can now employ anyone even if they are below the thresholds for NI and income tax unless they jump through the hoops of RTI, and pay the associated costs.

If everyone you employ is paid below the income tax threshold (assuming they have no other job) and below the NI Lower Earnings Level (which is less than the NIC threshold - £109 a week, rather than £148 a week, in the current tax year - but the exemption from operating PAYE has always been based on the LEL, not on the NIC threshold), you don't need to jump through the hoops of PAYE (or the RTI reporting that is part of it) because you simply do not need a PAYE scheme.  If you didn't need a PAYE scheme last year and your circumstances have not changed this year, you still do not need a PAYE scheme this year or hence, to concern yourself with RTI.  If you did need a PAYE scheme last year, but didn't have one, then Yes, RTI has had the effect of making you comply with the PAYE regulations which have always been in force.  Tough!

If you do have anyone on the payroll paid more than this, you need to have a PAYE scheme and operate PAYE.  This is not something new this year with RTI.  It has always been the case.  If you have to operate PAYE for just one employee, then you have to file RTI reports which include every employee you pay, which means that you have to put all your employees on the payroll.  It is only this additional work which you can possibly blame on the introduction of RTI.

May I suggest that you run your own payroll.  The cost of the Moneysoft payroll software is only £112 + VAT a year or if you don't have more than 20 employees in a tax year, just £56 a year.  It is easy to use and your wife would find it takes less time to run a payroll than doing it on paper.  I am sure that these prices must be less than you are paying to your payroll bureau.

Thanks (2)
By 0098087
16th Jan 2014 06:57

My apologies

Thanks (0)
16th Jan 2014 07:42

Cost of running payroll

How much does it cost you to run your payroll?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Vince54
16th Jan 2014 12:00

"An enormous faff for a few hours a week..."

...and don't forget the 'right to work' checks that should be made for all interviewees before employment starts!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ringi
16th Jan 2014 13:14

How soon before ALL payment need to be reported….

Given the changes to the benefit system, how long will it be before you have to tell HMRC about all payments to employees even when they are all under the limit and don’t have other jobs?

(Also remember you cannot sack someone for getting another part-time job and telling you about it.)

Thanks (0)
By 0098087
16th Jan 2014 13:18

They were talking about wanting bank account details to track payments

 

Thanks (0)
16th Jan 2014 13:18

It is bonkers!

I don't know if anyone else on here is willing to admit to this.  Since RTI became a real threat 2 years or so back, I have had a significant number of conversations with clients and other small business owners about the differences between employment and self-employment.

Two clients have made significant changes to their operations to ensure that workers were hired on a self-employment basis.  I am absolutely confident that a significant number of the non-client people locally have done exactly the same thing.

It was obvious to me at least that RTI was going to lead us down this direction, the logic of this appears to have been completely overlooked by HMRC.

Thanks (0)
to atleastisoundknowledgable...
16th Jan 2014 13:34

Why so many changes

mr. mischief wrote:
Two clients have made significant changes to their operations to ensure that workers were hired on a self-employment basis.
I'm really not seeing the enormous need for change here for most businesses. If they employ an accountant to do the payroll, submitting RTI returns.is simply a matter of that accountant pressing a button. Whilst there are alignment issues at the start, the overall operation of PAYE hasn't changed. If a payroll was operated correctly before then the additional work and costs should be negligible for most.

So why are all these businesses changing to self-employed? Could it possibly be because they weren't operating payroll correctly? Maybe taking a bunch of people on at low cash wages and not caring if they are evading tax by doing that in half a dozen jobs. Maybe being lax about getting payroll information to their accountants, so payroll is constantly dealt with in arrears (even though risk of paying employees the wrong amounts has always been a risk of doing this).

I acknowledge that the reporting of all employees when one triggers a PAYE liability is an extra burden for businesses with a handful of casual employees. However, I experienced a case of second and third jobs being flushed out under just such circumstances, so maybe it is a justified requirement after all.

Thanks (2)
16th Jan 2014 13:42

Barrier to employment

RTI is another barrier to employment and in my humble opinion will encourage more people to pay "cash in hand" which also generally flouts NMW regulations and Health safety and insurance regulations

This government seems to come up with these dumb ideas which may work in a huge business but does not do for bob the builder.

The problem lies with the sad fact that no one in government has ever had a proper job, let alone been self employed.

The next barrier to employment on its way is of course auto enrolment

no one likes a fiddler but we now have so much red tape human nature means most will take the easy option.

Thanks (1)
to atleastisoundknowledgable...
16th Jan 2014 14:59

What has RTI changed?

ccassociates wrote:
RTI is another barrier to employment and in my humble opinion will encourage more people to pay "cash in hand" which also generally flouts NMW regulations and Health safety and insurance regulations.
I have already pointed out how RTI has created virtually no change to the operation of payroll. If payroll was operated correctly in the past, then RTI only imposes a single further action, which payroll software will be designed to handle. Given the points I have already made, how is RTI more of a barrier to employment than the previous requirements to operate PAYE correctly?
Thanks (2)
avatar
to atleastisoundknowledgable...
20th Jan 2014 14:43

Proper jobs

ccassociates wrote:

The problem lies with the sad fact that no one in government has ever had a proper job, let alone been self employed.

I think you'll find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer worked for a week at Sefridge's, refolding towels.

In addition to his history degree, he is therefore more than qualified to run our economy.

 

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Liiwii
16th Jan 2014 19:06

Self employed...

I had no idea this would trigger quite such a discussion!

Thank you for all your advice, I have now found someone who is self employed and who will be invoicing me for the work done which makes my life very much easier than sorting out PAYE for the few hours a week I need the help for. She will also be working from home which also saves a lot of other measures being taken!

Thanks again.

Thanks (0)
16th Jan 2014 19:18

Not just RTI

It's not just RTI. It is the direction of travel.  We've got auto-enrolment around the corner, there is RTI with the threat of hefty fines especially for people operating weekly payrolls where instead of 12 fines per year you could see 52.  There is a clear steer within HMRC that as far as they are concerned there is no such thing as a casual worker.

When you discuss all this with people, a significant minority - say 20% or so - in my experience say "To Hell with employees, then, how do I go to sub-contracting instead?"  My job as their external accountant is to tell them how that would be possible and point them in the direction of HR experts who can make it happen properly.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By smallbeancounter
16th Jan 2014 22:42

Replies

@0098087 - Thanks!

@petersaxton £7 per payslip per run. So if we have a casual employee who hasn't worked, or has only done (say) 4 hours, that's £7 cost to pay about £30 wages

@stepurhan I don't think my post implied we had been acting illegally before, and we certainly hadn't. You said: 'RTI has just changed the reporting of PAYE, not how PAYE itself operates'. Wrong. My wife used to do the whole thing quickly with paper tables, without a single mistake over a 17 year period. Ever tried using HMRC computer systems? Freaking nightmare.

@Vince54 I devised my own forms for dealing with right to work and have already started using them for tenants of my buy-to-lets. 

@mr. mischief Of course we looked in to this but for most people it doesn't work. As I'm sure you know there is some very clear law about the difference between employee and self-employed status and it is extremely difficult to pass the tests for most pre-existing roles in businesses. In our business the test that is failed every time is the one where it says that to be self-employed the person has to essentially do the work in the way they want (sorry, fairly vague rendition of the language there) whereas we need to tell people what to do, how to do it, where to do it, and when to do it. My guess is that a lot of so-called self-employed people (and their "clients") are skating on very thin ice and the penalties that lurk below the ice are quite unpleasant

@ccassociates 'The next barrier to employment on its way is of course auto enrolment' Yes, I truly think that will be the death knell of the very small business where a single person employees perhaps one or two people who earn more than the exemption.

@Euan MacLennan Are you sure about that?

@stepurhan (2) 'Given the points I have already made, how is RTI more of a barrier to employment than the previous requirements to operate PAYE correctly?' Because of the (and I quote myself) freakin' HMRC computer systems. We did look at them, we really did, and we ran a mile.

@All: Look, I agree there have to be taxes or we wouldn't have any public services. I agree that there have to be controls. But if you can't understand what all this looks like to the very small businessperson who is thinking that they might take on someone, as an apprentice, or trainee perhaps, or just as a part-time casual help, then you will never understand why it is likely to have an adverse effect on employment. Being an employer nowadays is a fearful responsibility. If I was a young man starting a career I wouldn't take it on. I'd direct my talents to finding a career where someone else took the risks and I earned a good wage, preferably with a  bonus and a pension, almost certainly in a big company, or in the public services. It's the effect on micro businesses that matters. And it's not a good effect.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
to DJKL
17th Jan 2014 09:55

Then by all means please explain

smallbeancounter wrote:
@stepurhan I don't think my post implied we had been acting illegally before, and we certainly hadn't.
You say your post did not imply you had acted illegally before. Perhaps you could explain these two sentences then.

smallbeancounter wrote:
So my advice is, forget about fiddling anything. There are no viable fiddles left.
Am I misunderstanding your use of the word "fiddle" here. Generally speaking fiddles are considered to be doing things that are wrong and, in this context, illegal. I'd also be interested in a clarification on this statement
smallbeancounter wrote:
...because the tax we and our employees pay is exactly the same: nil. We never evaded any tax; we didn't even avoid any.
when you had previously said
smallbeancounter wrote:
A few employees moaned and I think one did leave for another "cash-in-hand" job.
Are you saying that the employee that left for another cash-in-hand job definitely didn't do so because working cash-in-hand allowed them to avoid tax? If they did leave for that reason, have you not been complicit in their avoidance of tax in the past? If you can give another reason for this employee leaving simply because you would be reporting their pay under RTI in future, I'd love to hear it.

As for HMRC's systems being a complete nightmare, I wholeheartedly agree. But cheap ways of switching to computerised payroll have been suggested more than once on this thread. These systems not only allow you to file RTI, but will do all the calculations for you, and are therefore likely to be much quicker than doing it on paper. They will also eliminate calculation errors, so you can be sure you are accounting for the correct amounts of tax and PAYE. Is £56 a year really such an excessive cost.

Slightly off topic, you say that your own  tax bill is nil. Given how low the profits of your business would have to be for that to be the case, what are you and your wife living on? If the business is really unviable, which regular untaxed profits would imply, why are you continuing?

Thanks (1)
to DJKL
17th Jan 2014 10:54

Yes - I am sure

smallbeancounter wrote:

@Euan MacLennan Are you sure about that?

I am not sure what in particular you are asking if I am sure about, but Yes - I am sure about everything I said in my post.

Is there something about which you think I might be wrong?

Thanks (0)
17th Jan 2014 07:21

Madness

"£7 per payslip per run. So if we have a casual employee who hasn't worked, or has only done (say) 4 hours, that's £7 cost to pay about £30 wages"

You are saying that you are being charged £7 per payslip for run!? That is a massive amount. You can get cheaper anywhere. You can do it yourself for £56 + VAT per year.

http://www.moneysoft.co.uk/payroll-software/payroll-manager-prices.htm

You still get charged £7 if a casual employee doesn't work!? Total madness!

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By DMGbus
17th Jan 2014 08:47

Student workers - definite extra employer costs

I have a case where pre-RTI everything was simple - no PAYE scheme.

The student worker(s) would sign a P38s to state that wages from all jobs in a tax year would be less than the personal allowance.

A student worker might have been earning weekly say £ 40 at the local supermarket and £ 50 at a local farm.  Or £ 100 at each employer but only for a few months of the year.

So the farm having the signed P38s had no PAYE scheme.

Comes along RTI - P38s/similar certification has gone. 

Farm has to have a PAYE scheme.  For first few weeks BR tax has to be deducted from the students wages, then new code number is issued and tax deducted is repaid to the student worker and gross pay resumes.

The farm owners do not have the time, confidence or expertise to run even the easiest of payroll software (ie. Bright Pay) so they have to use a local bookkeeper or their accountants to run RTI.  A most definite imposition of extra costs caused by RTI, probably several hundred pounds a year.

 

Thanks (1)
17th Jan 2014 09:04

Student exemption

Thank you DMGbus. A legitimate issue with RTI as it stands rather than just general moaning without backing it up.

It would make sense for the student exemption to continue, being treated in a similar way to the only or main job below the limits employee. I would be wholeheartedly behind any campaign to get this done. Any thoughts on how we might go about getting such an exemption reinstated?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By DMGbus
17th Jan 2014 09:21

P38s reinstatement

I expect that the "Working Together" forum is the channel to approach on the subject of getting P38s re-instated.

I get the impression, however, that two or more of the following apply with "Working Together":

Meetings of WT are too infrequentToo many HMRC issues to be resolved by WTIneffective (eg. delays with CIS overpayments via P35 / Ltd Co's) and WT lacks the time resource to press this matter further with HMRC

So, what is really needed is a regular meeting Working Party specifically for RTI issues - not just P38s but also to cover important things like incorrect mapping of PAYE/NIC liability data from Employers Office to Collector of Taxes.  

An issue for an RTI Working Party  - or any Working Party (or WT) is resources - time resources and costs of lost chargeable time for participants.  Bearing mind that WT is for the benefit of taxpayers and HMRC, then it should be that adequate remuneration to WT participants be funded by HMRC.   WT is about getting tax systems to work properly - so HMRC should bear the cost of WT.

Thanks (0)

Pages

Share this content