Replies (11)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Let me just check the detailed guidance on that...
If you want my guess, they can probably claim under both, subject to an overall cap of £2500 a month but that's a guess as the detailed guidance to which I refer doesn't exist.
Nope, the complete opposite:-So the overall cap relates to a person not a role / job.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-could-be-covered-by-the-coronav...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-could-be-covered-by-the-coronav...If you currently have more than one employer
You can be put on furlough by one employer and continue to work for another, if it is permitted within your employment contract.If you’re put on furlough by more than one employer, you’ll receive separate payments from each employer. The 80% of your normal wage up to a £2,500 monthly cap applies to each job.
Wow, I hadn't seen that, thanks.
I'm not convinced it says what it means, but it does say what you say it says.
Was the director taking a salary from both companies in Feb?
It would be unusual, for sure...…..
At a time like this when the Government is trying to help those who are losing out because of the pandemic there is something extremely distasteful about people trying to game the system and grab all they can.
Yes is is true that the rules are not clear (or in some areas not even written) but to try and grab two lots of £2500, when clearly it was never intended that some people should get two (or more) support packages is surely unacceptable.
Think about your children and grandchildren, who will be paying for all of this. How would they feel if the knew what you had done?
It would be quite an unusual situation for this to apply, You'd be looking at two employments both at a gross of over £37,500 each or an employment + self employment both over £37,500 with the self employment at a higher level than the employment.Yes is is true that the rules are not clear (or in some areas not even written) but to try and grab two lots of £2500, when clearly it was never intended that some people should get two (or more) support packages is surely unacceptable.
What moral judgment call is that? How can it be immoral to claim something exactly how the law (as outlined in the published guidance) intended it to be claimed, which is so despite Comptable's unfounded assertion. Remember the two employments must be unconnected and the claimant could not have arranged to be in this relatively fortunate position by 'gaining the system' unless he had a very good crystal ball and the ability to arrange his working life with two well paid unconnected employments.
The person in Wanderer's example will have to repay all his child benefit whereas the couple next door with a household income of £100K that is split equally between them get to keep all their child benefit. Could he omit the HICBC from his return on moral grounds? Tax isn't fair and nor are these CV support measures, they are arbitrary. Take for example the SE cut-off. A with profits of £49,999 can claim the maximum where as B with income of £50,001 can't claim anything.
It would be quite reasonable for two employers to furlough the same person in both employments so the argument of morality is a dead one in my opinion. And I see no reason why the director couldn't apply the same logic, providing they were employed in both companies.