Need helpful answers

Perhaps there aren't any

Didn't find your answer?

Yesterday a new walk in client wants help with a SEISS compliance check. Luck'ly HMRC latest announcement has given me time to deal with it

2017-18 Self employed

2018-19 Self employed until 12/11/18 when became employed

2019-20 Employed until 22/02/20 when became self employed again.

2020-21 Self employed (to date)

Previous agent claimed SEISS grants, stating he was eligible

The wording in the grant eligibility section is "have traded" , which he has but not for the full year. Was he still eligible or am I grasping at straws ??

Replies (6)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By SXGuy
26th Jan 2021 11:48

Have traded and carrying on "a" trade. I'd say he was eligible.

Thanks (0)
By williams lester accountants
26th Jan 2021 12:27

I would say eligible.

Thanks (0)
By Truthsayer
26th Jan 2021 13:38

'Previous agent claimed SEISS grants'

I wonder how? Agents can't claim them for their clients.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Truthsayer:
By bernard michael
26th Jan 2021 13:43

Truthsayer wrote:

'Previous agent claimed SEISS grants'

I wonder how? Agents can't claim them for their clients.

Good point I'll ask the client. I suspect he used the client's gateway no

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
the sea otter
By memyself-eye
26th Jan 2021 16:29

...or the agent used his?

Thanks (0)
By Hazel Accounts
04th Feb 2021 09:36

I would also say eligible as traded in 2019/20 and still trading (subject to Covid interruptions) going forward, but maybe there's an issue with the 50% income criteria?

I would assume as only SE a bit of 2019/20 his self-employed is under 50% so then one would look at the whole 3 years of which he's employed for about 15 months.
I obviously don't know:
(a) if that's more income than 21 months of SE but could be and
(b) whether HMRCs system (which had the info) picked it up correctly - I think they did if SE less than 50% in every year, but don't know if the programmers coped with straddled years.....

As I said just a possibility and as you have figures one you can rule in or out very quickly

Thanks (0)