Share this content

Job Retention Scheme Fraud

Job Retention Scheme Fraud

Didn't find your answer?

Hello All

I am an accountancy agent. I took over a new client two weeks ago. After I received all his documentations, I realized something wrong with his JRB claim.  He is a director and running a small company. During the period of the covid-19 pandemic, he has no trading because his business is about international travel.  He started to receive JRB claims from April 2020. He claimed 80% of his wages ( his full-time wage is £700).  In October 2020, He found a full-time job. Therefore, he has two jobs. In order to avoid income tax, he reduced his salary in his company down to £200.  But his JRB claims are still based on £700.  He has claimed 80% of £700 since October 2020 till now. However, he only pays himself £200 ( It shows £200 on his payslips).  I am feeling this is not correct.  Anyone advise if this is fraud? Shall I report to HMRC?

 

Many thanks 

 

Carolyn

 

 

Replies (64)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Paul Crowley
23rd Aug 2021 13:23

Not straight away
Inform client as he is the one who messed it up.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By David Ex
23rd Aug 2021 13:28

I’m not sure what a “an accountancy agent” is but it would be worth speaking to your professional body who should be able to provide advice.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By claudialowe
23rd Aug 2021 13:33

I can understand how this could happen - copy and paste from last month. I would tell the client that they have over claimed, and explain the procedure to repay an overclaim.

Their response to this will dictate what you do or don't do next.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By happystone
23rd Aug 2021 13:53

I have told my client that he has overclaimed. He said he has no money to pay back to HMRC. and He didn't believe my calculation. His previous accountant has done everything for him. His previous accountant claimed £560 every month but only on £200 on his payslips.

Thanks (0)
Replying to happystone:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Aug 2021 14:39

Now that's what I call fraud (with apologies to lovers of '80s music)!

It's was also mind-blowingly stupid ... "In order to avoid income tax", so he was prepared to turn down free money in order to save a smaller amount of tax (the generous interpretation), or was willing to commit fraud (the more likely scenario).

Thanks (4)
avatar
By the_drookit_dug
23rd Aug 2021 15:07

What on earth are HMRC up to paying it out every month? This should have been the easiest error in the world for them to detect.

Thanks (1)
Replying to the_drookit_dug:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Aug 2021 15:32

You'd think!
But, given ineptitude displayed by client and/or previous accountant, I suppose it's just possible that they decided to put the higher wage through RTI (and base the CJRS claim on that), whilst only paying the lower wage in reality (and showing that on the payslip)?
I've given up trying to apply logic to any guesses as to what they did (or why they either thought it OK or undetectable), so am left with random possibilities!

Thanks (2)
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
23rd Aug 2021 15:28

There must surely be more to it... might there perhaps have been a single large payroll payment - perhaps say at the end of March '21 - to settle the '20/21 £360 p.m. shortfall?

Who actually processed the JRB claim, accountant or client? Same question regarding the payroll processing. This smacks of too may cooks, and/or a greedy client trying to pass the buck to his old accountant. It seems inconceivable that a professional would make such a rookie error without some element of client getting oar in!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By legerman
23rd Aug 2021 16:22

He hasn't overclaimed. He was entitled to receive £560 a month based on the reference period.

The error lay in not paying the employee (in this case himself) the full amount of the monies received, which is against the rules.

Thanks (1)
Replying to legerman:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
23rd Aug 2021 16:39

Very good point.

So if he hasn't already, under the director PAYE rules, awarded himself a large one-off payment somewhere in 2020/21 to cover the shortfall, might our director instead be able to award himself a bonus for 2020/21 payable now, in 2021/22's payroll (and let's suppose within 9 months of the company's year end)?

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By the_drookit_dug
23rd Aug 2021 16:50

Not sure I'd want to call it a bonus in this situation - I'd want my records to be absolutely clear that it was a catch up for salary underpaid in relation to the earlier claims. Not that, in substance, it would be any different from a bonus.

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Aug 2021 16:57

No, he has already made each claim invalid (and therefore liable for repayment) by not paying (himself) the amount on which the claim was based (during each of the tax months).

When @legerman says "He was entitled to receive £560 a month based on the reference period" ... that's only correct in the sense of the eligibility for being furloughed - but NOT in the sense of CJRS which is entirely dependent on the amount actually being paid to the furloughed employee (subject to rules).

So forget a 'bonus' (or any other retrospective chicanery) - the CJRS claim was fraudulent and should be repaid ASAP (even if deeming it to have been a mistake)!

Thanks (2)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By the_drookit_dug
23rd Aug 2021 17:52

I'm not certain that not paying the full amount in the month of the claim makes it invalid - certainly, in cases where wages underpayments have been made due to genuine error, catch up payments later are acceptable.

I agree though that this case pushes the limits of credibility, and to me ignorance of the rules and/or oversight seem difficult to justify.

Thanks (0)
Replying to the_drookit_dug:
avatar
By Wanderer
23rd Aug 2021 18:09

The only reference that I can remember is that the first direction stated that if the original payment was too low to qualify for CJRS then the catch up payments had to be made BEFORE the CJRS claim was made.
Was there something else later?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By the_drookit_dug
23rd Aug 2021 19:05

2nd treasury direction was more generous:

"7.12 (c) the employer has paid (or intends to pay within a reasonable period after receiving the payment claimed under CJRS) the employee a further amount (“the further amount”) in respect of the period of employment to which the original payment relates"

Although I seriously doubt whether any payment made now would qualify as "within a reasonable period".

Thanks (1)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By the_drookit_dug
23rd Aug 2021 19:06

.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By happystone
23rd Aug 2021 17:18

Thank you for answering my query, everyone.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By happystone
23rd Aug 2021 17:17

Thank you for answering my query, everyone.

I asked my client. As he has got a full time job, he agreed with his old accountant to reduce his salary down to £200 in order to pay less income tax. The accountant processed everything, payroll and claims. £560 is gone to his company bank account every month. only £200 is on his payslips but he withdraws £560 from his company bank account. I believe this is aganist JRS rules. He avoids the income tax for £360 every month.

Thanks (0)
Replying to happystone:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Aug 2021 17:29

You're still missing the point!

HMRC basic guidance to CJRS:
"You must pay the full amount you are claiming for your employee’s wages to your employee. You must also pay the associated employee tax and National Insurance contributions to HMRC, even if your company is in administration. If you’re not able to do that, you’ll need to repay the money back to HMRC."

As I've hinted in earlier posts:
a) it is unequivocal that the amount claimed must be paid IN FULL (my italics) to the employee in her/his pay for the claimed tax month;
b) that pay must be reported (and accounted for) in the usual way via RTI for each of the pay periods ... which includes paying HMRC any tax and/or NICs due.

All this talk of what's shown on the payslip or what was actually paid to (aka withdrawn by) the employee are red herrings in the context of OP.
If a) was not complied with then the claim is invalid and must be repaid; if b) was used to lie about the amounts being 'paid' then the slippery slope of fraud just went into an uncontrolled descent!

Thanks (3)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Aug 2021 17:35

BTW, I presume OP's client is aware that "CJRS payments received are to offset the deductible revenue costs of employees - so must be included as income when taxable profits for Income Tax and Corporation Tax purposes are calculated."

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By DKB-Sheffield
23rd Aug 2021 18:04

Playing Devil's Advocate slightly, and I'm certainly not siding with the OP's client (whois almost certainly in the wrong) it could surely be argued that the director "withdrawing" £560 per month (80% of £700) from the company would satisfy the "payment in full" criteria - particularly if that was in a single transaction (although this is unconfirmed)?

This would then bring a greater emphasis on the reporting side and, potentially questions on the eligibilty of the employer as a whole were it to be suggested that the director no longer intends to trade through the limited company (now in full time employment).

Thanks (0)
Replying to DKB-Sheffield:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Aug 2021 18:24

I don't believe that 'the director "withdrawing" £560 per month (80% of £700) from the company would satisfy the "payment in full" criteria' ... for the same reason to which you allude in your very next post.
Namely, it's not the amount withdrawn (or paid) that's the issue, it's what amount was treated as pay (by being processed as such and reported via RTI) - and whether this is the same amount as that used when calculating the CJRS claim.

Thanks (1)
Replying to happystone:
avatar
By DKB-Sheffield
23rd Aug 2021 17:44

happystone wrote:

The accountant processed everything, payroll and claims.

I'm sure you've checked but... are you certain the RTI submissions agree with the payslips and the outgoing accountant's actions?! Did you obtain the payroll records from the previous accountant? Assuming the previous accountant responded, was anything highlighted in professional clearance that may indicate the reason for disengagement?

The stories I have heard from prospective clients in the past about how "their accountant fiddled this" and "let 'them' get away with that" could lead me to believe every other accountant is a crook! Truth is, in most cases, the client's word is often rubbish and in many cases, is the reason the client is looking for a new accountant in the first place!

However, if what you are saying IS entirely true and is proved by payroll records/ RTI submissions, the accountant must be crazy to have jeopardised their entire practice over a meagre tax saving (by which I mean fraud).

For whatever reason (as given above), I believe this issue may be the reason your client has approached a new accountant and I would advise GREAT CARE!

Thanks (2)
Replying to DKB-Sheffield:
avatar
By happystone
23rd Aug 2021 18:11

The reason why the client changed the accountant is that the old accountant charged too much. For example, £120 for year-end submission andP60. I have checked payslips, p60 and FPS.. They are using sage payroll. It is strange that there is no basic payment information on FPS. Income tax and NIC are zero on FPS.

Thanks (0)
Replying to happystone:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Aug 2021 18:18

If "his full-time wage is £700" (presumably per mth), then it's not particularly surprising (depending on client's tax code) that "Income tax and NIC are zero on FPS."

But the key question is what does each FPS show as the gross pay?
If there really is "no basic payment information on FPS" then you (or rather your client) has got even bigger problems!

Thanks (1)
Replying to happystone:
avatar
By DKB-Sheffield
23rd Aug 2021 19:01

happystone wrote:

£120 for year-end submission andP60.

Wow! Seriously £120 for a P60 and a (pretty much non-existent) year end submission (no P35s anymore). Is that in addition to monthly payroll? Were they Big 4?!

happystone wrote:

It is strange that there is no basic payment information on FPS.

What are you looking at? Can you see the full detail or the XML file? The final FPS of the year (and previous ones) should certainly show something in the YTD gross earnings AND the NIC YTD earnings (even if below the LEL).

'Nothing' suggests (to me) that no payroll was run at all - certainly not using the Sage employer file you have been provided. It would also suggest that any income reported on the P60, and indeed the P60 itself, was not grnerated using the Sage file you have been provided with.

Thanks (1)
Replying to happystone:
avatar
By Rgab1947
27th Aug 2021 12:27

What! £120! And he left?

And some dodgy stuff.

Would not touch him with a barge pole.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DKB-Sheffield:
avatar
By DKB-Sheffield
23rd Aug 2021 18:30

To clarify, my reference to (potential) fraudulent activity would apply in and ONLY IN the case where the OP's client and/ or their accountants were deliberate in their attempts to defraud. Furthermore, whilst the suggestion by the OP that their new client's outgoing accountant prepared payroll and CJRS claims may suggest a dishonest activity, it is by no means conclusive, may well have been a careless error, and may even have been a pure embellishment (or fabrication) of the facts by the OP's new client (as suggested in my post).

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
23rd Aug 2021 17:58

I see mention of the word "fraud". But fraud necessarily involves dishonesty - not mere mistake or muddle or misunderstanding.
If there has been fraud there may be a need to submit a Suspicious Activity Report to the NCA - but first you need to clarify if you suspect fraud. Based on what you have posted so far, I am not sure that you do.
David

Thanks (4)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Aug 2021 18:13

Fair point, which is why I (not usually so prone to flinging the f word around) changed references to "the CJRS claim was fraudulent" to "the CJRS claims were invalid and must be repaid".
However, if we take OP's stated words (not just in OP but in her/his response at 17:17, then the client's intent to evade tax is both clear and deliberate.
Only OP will know how accurate those words were - and so must make up their own mind as to next steps.
[And FWIW it's not only SARs that should be under consideration, there is a whistleblowing line that HMRC positively encourages anyone to call re CJRS].

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
David Winch
By David Winch
23rd Aug 2021 18:26

But you wouldn't call the whistleblowing line unless you first had authority from the client to make the disclosure to HMRC (because otherwise you would be breaching your duty of confidentiality to the client).
David

Thanks (0)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By psimonparsons
27th Aug 2021 19:51

Interesting to see what views are with AML obligations which I suspect would apply. So setting a hypothesis - Accountancy Service Providers have obligation under Anti Money Laundering obligations within the supervisory body they are registered. If this CJRS application is suspected as fraud, would there be an obligation to report with no reference to the client as that would be a breach.

Thanks (1)
Replying to psimonparsons:
David Winch
By David Winch
27th Aug 2021 20:57

psimonparsons wrote:

Interesting to see what views are with AML obligations which I suspect would apply. So setting a hypothesis - If this CJRS application is suspected as fraud, would there be an obligation to report with no reference to the client as that would be a breach.


Yes there would. The report would be to the firm's MLRO / the NCA (not to HMRC).
David
Thanks (0)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By psimonparsons
28th Aug 2021 07:03

So there would be a obligation to report to the National Crime Agency without reference or permission of the client as that would be forbidden? How many accountancy service providers are doing that?

Where does the activity fall within the Standards for Agents and disclosure requirements etc. under PCRT.

Would reporting fraud to HMRC or NCA breach client confidentiality?

Thanks (0)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By DKB-Sheffield
23rd Aug 2021 18:29

Hi David

Yes, thank you for the comment. I have tried to add a footnote to my post but it timed out as soon as I'd finished drafting it!

To clarify, my reference to (potential) fraudulent activity would apply in and ONLY IN the case where the OP's client and/ or their accountants were deliberate in their attempts to defraud. Furthermore, whilst the suggestion by the OP that their new client's outgoing accountant prepared payroll and CJRS claims may suggest a dishonest activity, it is by no means conclusive, may well have been a careless error, and may even have been a pure embellishment (or fabrication) of the facts by the OP's new client (as suggested in my post).

Many thanks once again for the alert!

Dave

Thanks (1)
Replying to DKB-Sheffield:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Aug 2021 18:44

I quite agree (with David as well).
But at the risk of loading hypothesis on a foundation of guesswork (always a danger with this forum), OP's response that "£560 is gone to his company bank account every month. only £200 is on his payslips but he withdraws £560 from his company bank account" indicates (to me) that client is fully aware of the 'discrepancy' (and its cause) - and has been happy to continue that dubious transaction every month!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
23rd Aug 2021 21:58

Hi Hugo,

David's mens rea call is a sound reminder.

Suppose we put the client's culpability aside for one moment; and, bearing in mind we GPs might be open to a charge of negligence for an omission almost as equally as we are open to a charge of negligence for our acts, then the question boils down to whether matters could be put right legitimately. viz:

Client director claims £560pm furlough pay months 1 to 12 season 2020/21. Being a director, and able to pay himself incrementally without NI penalty, he pays himself zulch months 1 to 11 but come month 12 (so march '21) he awards himself a single annual payment of £560 x 12.

How might that sit with you?

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Aug 2021 23:01

I'm not sure how I've ended up feeling as though I'm being portrayed as some vengeful person determined on retribution ...

However, matters cannot "be put right legitimately" via your scenario (at least in terms of the CJRS claims) as I thought I'd explained copiously above.
But for the avoidance of doubt - using your scenario:
* "Client director claims £560pm furlough pay months 1 to 12 season 2020/21"
This is fine (subject to eligibility criteria and the relevant furlough agreement) IF AND ONLY IF he is actually being paid (via PAYE) gross pay of at least £700 pm for those furloughed hours in the month for which the claim is made.
[I'm skipping over things like any worked/flexi-furlough hours in more recent months].
* "Being a director, and able to pay himself incrementally without NI penalty, he pays himself zilch months 1 to 11 but come month 12 (so march '21) he awards himself a single annual payment of £560 x 12"
He's perfectly entitled to do just that ... BUT NOT to also claim at the same time (for the purposes of each CJRS claim) that he was being paid an entirely different amount each month (£700 instead of zilch).

Hence my asking the (unanswered) question regarding what gross earnings were reported on the FPS each month ... because that MUST tally with amount used to calculate the CJRS claim for that month.

So, to answer your question, your scenario does not sit well with me ... but more importantly it certainly won't with HMRC. With the obvious caveat that any conclusion is entirely dependent on the accuracy of OP (and subsequent updates), there is IMHO absolutely no question that the CJRS claims need to be fully (not partly) repaid as they are invalid. Any other question of intent or dishonesty is another matter as David has correctly pointed out - which may raise further options or necessary actions.
But there is nothing that can be done (or retrospectively decided) that will transform those CJRS claims into being valid ... the ship has sailed!

Thanks (2)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By the_drookit_dug
23rd Aug 2021 23:57

The treasury direction does allow later payments 'within a reasonable period' to correct for underpayments, however I would interpret this to cover situations where folk have reviewed their calculations and identified a few quid underpaid here and there - genuine errors.

This scenario though is entirely different - the whole claim and thinking underpinning it was invalid from the outset.

I'm in agreement with you - it must be repaid.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
24th Aug 2021 09:43

Hugo Fair wrote:

* "Client director claims £560pm furlough pay months 1 to 12 season 2020/21"
This is fine (subject to eligibility criteria and the relevant furlough agreement) IF AND ONLY IF he is actually being paid (via PAYE) gross pay of at least £700 pm for those furloughed hours in the month for which the claim is made.
[I'm skipping over things like any worked/flexi-furlough hours in more recent months].

Wouldn't £560 pm (not £700 pm) be the minimum amount to be paid via PAYE?

Assuming that is the case, how much should be repaid to the Revenue? (a)the entire £560 pm; or (b) the shortfall £560 - £200 = £360 pm?

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
24th Aug 2021 10:19

No ... because the claim is (or rather was) for 80% of what was being paid.
(a) ... because the claim was invalid and that's the amount of the claim.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
24th Aug 2021 14:52

Hugo Fair wrote:

No ... because the claim is (or rather was) for 80% of what was being paid.

Maybe we're at cross-purposes here, but wasn't the 20% wages top-up optional for employers?

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By DKB-Sheffield
24th Aug 2021 15:33

That was my understanding too (at least I hope it was correct!!!). The 80% could be paid without top up on the basis that a contractual agreement was made to pay less than the 'normal' (base) salary*. Whether a contractual agreement was reached, or how it can be determined that is was reached at the time (hard to disprove where the employee is the main delegate of the contracting party) is another question.

It is for this reason that I suggested the condition that a payment must be physically made to cover the employer's obligation under CJRS would appear satisfied. I believe the issue is therefore in relation to the actual RTI submissions (whether they correlate to the payments made) and whether there was an accidental or deliberate error in the event of such a failure.

The OP has suggested the actions were deliberately handled (by an accountant) in a way to reduce the client tax liability. However, I believe this was based on discussions with the client as opposed to admission by the outgoing accountant/ pauroll provider.

However, there are clear inconsistencies in relation to the payslips/ P60 (referred to by the OP) and the information provided by the OP regarding the FPS submissions (which suggest NO income has been declared cumulatively through RTI).

Without further confirmation from the OP as to the steps taken to explain a "Nil FPS", when it would appear to contradict the payroll records (physical and electronic), I am slightly erring on the side of a potentially mistaken interpretation of the facts, or an ommission of some of those facts by the OP.

EDIT: * This application differs for periods where the employer's entitlement is below 80% (e.g. August 2021 entitlement reduced to 60%). Where the entitlement is BELOW 80%, the employer must pay NO LESS than 80% of the basis salary/ wage.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DKB-Sheffield:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
24th Aug 2021 16:06

Thanks DKB, so that's a vote that the 20% excess in 2020/21 was payable at the employer's option.

That aside, I, like you, believe we're lean on the facts of this case.

Hugo, suppose we accept that £560pm (ie the 80% claimed) was also the minimum PAYE payable to the director, might there not then be an arguable case for repaying only the £360 pm shortfall to HMRC, rather than the complete £560 pm claim?

To turn that on its head, if it were the case that HMRC expected full repayment of a month's grant then that doesn't fit very well with their monthly application form, which contains a question asking whether the amount presently being applied for has been reduced due to an overpayment in previous months. See the point - HMRC anticipate the excess previously overclaimed to (effectively) be returned; not the full amount of that earlier claim. (So, putting some flesh on those bones, £360 rather than £560 in our protagonist's case).

To persist, if a full repayment of a month's grant to HMRC was the order of the day, that could produce some inequitable results where say a claim for a large amount (perhaps £2,010 for a month) is subject to a small error (let's imagine a £10 overclaim). Where to draw the line? I'm going to suggest at the £200 pm properly paid in the OP's circumstance; with the £360 excess repayable to HMRC.

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
24th Aug 2021 18:11

"so that's a vote that the 20% excess in 2020/21 was payable at the employer's option". Well actually what DKB (quite correctly) said was "The 80% could be paid without top up on the basis that a contractual agreement was made to pay less than the 'normal' (base) salary" - which is not quite the same thing, as the agreement (which is a contractual change of employment terms) had to be issued PRIOR to any furlough being applied.

However ... I still cannot follow your approach when you say "suppose we accept that £560pm (ie the 80% claimed) was also the minimum PAYE payable to the director, might there not then be an arguable case for repaying only the £360 pm shortfall to HMRC, rather than the complete £560 pm claim?"

The claim was invalid ... the claim was for £560 pm ... therefore the £560 pm is repayable.
[The £200 was (possibly) paid to the director/employee not HMRC, so has no relevance to the amount due to HMRC].

If there is any logic to your approach (which I have to say I find optimistic at best) it would be in a scenario where there was a one-off 'mistake' - where the amount processed/reported through RTI differed slightly from the amount used as input to calculate the CJRS claim.

But a comprehensive disconnect between the two sets of figures, that continues for many months, is not an 'error' open to a later 'adjustment' ... it is at the very least (and being generous) a fundamental misunderstanding of the scheme rules which have therefore been applied incorrectly - making the application INVALID (and therefore repayable in full).

In the nicest possible way, I feel we have been round the houses enough times for me to now be on nodding acquaintance terms with many of the householders ... so I'll stop repeating myself. If you (or anyone else) manages to convince HMRC of your opinion then I'll be happy to cheer from the sidelines, but I'll be astonished.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
24th Aug 2021 19:59

Just playing Devil's Advocate, Hugo.

Interested to see where others would draw the line. I agree that a regular £360 pm underpayment is too much of a chasm.

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
25th Aug 2021 13:23

Although I do have a client who overclaimed back in the Spring, just the one month, on one of those take the higher figure of the average monthly pay for period x or the actual amount paid in a previous year's corresponding month - for people on irregular pay - and she got her numbers wrong.

I advised her to "repay" the excess - not the month's full amount, just the amount over and above the sum she was properly entitled to apply for - which she did by adjusting a later claim. (£360 not £560, if we were to borrow the figures from this thread's case).

You have me wondering too whether any director clients who've claimed furlough pay for many months have "paid" it to themselves periodically in one lump sum, for example in one annual Month 12 lump. Are we saying that's not acceptable?

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
25th Aug 2021 14:25

Ok, OK ... you've managed to drag me back in, but only for this one more time!

"whether any director clients who've claimed furlough pay for many months have "paid" it to themselves periodically in one lump sum, for example in one annual Month 12 lump. Are we saying that's not acceptable?"

You're connecting (possibly confusing) two similar but distinctly separate issues:
1. The amount 'paid' (in the sense of processed by payroll and reported via RTI).
If the gross pay on the FPS isn't 125% of the CJRS claimed amount, then that will be deemed a fraudulent claim IMHO (whether intentional or not).
2. The amount 'paid' (in the sense of paid over to the employee/director).
If the net pay transferred to the employee isn't the same as that reported in the FPS (as being made at the payment date), then all sorts of other rules have been broken (from those for RTI to employment right issues) - which can have a major impact on UC claims (although probably not in this case).
And then there's my original point about the validity of the CJRS claim being dependent on compliance with the scheme rules - which include paying the whole claim to the employee in a timely manner (usually taken to mean the payment date shown on the FPS).

So, Yes, I'm saying your scenario is not acceptable (to HMRC)!

But you're having this conversation with the wrong person if what you want to do is to come up with ever more specific scenarios to test the rules ... for that you'll have to talk to HMRC (or, since they won't deal in speculative scenarios, submit some actual 'dubious' claims and wait to see what eventually transpires).

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Wanderer
25th Aug 2021 14:34

Hugo Fair wrote:
1. The amount 'paid' (in the sense of processed by payroll and reported via RTI).
If the gross pay on the FPS isn't 125% of the CJRS claimed amount, then that will be deemed a fraudulent claim IMHO (whether intentional or not).

Haven't read the whole of this thread but think you need to think again about that point. Quite valid (in 80% months) to pay the employee exactly what is being claimed.
Aplogies if I've read this out of context.
Thanks (1)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
25th Aug 2021 17:17

You are of course correct ... apologies for typing quicker than my brain cells , and then not checking what I'd typed. Nevertheless the underlying point is still valid ... and would have been more accurately stated as:

1. The amount 'paid' (in the sense of processed by payroll and reported via RTI).
If the gross pay on the FPS isn't at least 100% of the CJRS claimed amount, then that will be deemed a fraudulent claim IMHO (whether intentional or not).

Thanks (1)

Pages

Share this content