We are already entering SEISS and CJRS scheme payments into the correct box on the Self Employment page - so HMRC know this by looking at the Return. Why, then, do we need to tick a box to say yes we have done that?!
Related resources
Replies (26)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Is it the ‘and retained’ part which is relevant to this particular box? Just pondering out loud.
I thought that the reason for the tick box was to confirm that you have included it on the tax return.
In tax filer it says
“I declare that all coronavirus support payments (such as CJRS, JRB, SEISS & EOTHO) received in the period of this return have been included as taxable income when calculating profits”
I might be missing something but I can't see where it says "retained"?
But I will already be entering a figure in the box on the self employment page. Why on earth do we have to tick to say I’ve done it
No idea ... but suspect it's another example of the 'nudge' philosophy that first permeated the Cabinet Office and is now seeping into HMRC communications.
In other words (in their eyes) if you are faced with this Q then you are more likely to go "Whoops, forgot to enter those ... better go back and do so"!
Doesn't show a lot of faith in (honesty or competence) of form filler ... but then we know what they think of us and our clients.
Agreed. But why can’t they use an entry in box 70.1 as a flag?
EDIT - I suppose it’s because other support payments go into box 16 and so wouldn’t be picked up.
Who cares? Decent software should tick it automatically once you've filled in the other boxes. Like I can't remember the last time I ticked any of the boxes on page TR2 - software does it all. (Do you worry about those boxes? Thought not.)
Yes, it should be how you said similar how to if we complete an Employment page, the relevant box is ticked on the SA100
Thanks for the heads up Davey. There is a separate section to complete this box on Taxfiler which you have to add manually.
However you can complete 70.1 and still file without completing box 20.1. It doesn’t fail the validation check.
I asked TF to change this the day the form came out. I've bored everyone on other threads about my concerns about this, but a very obvious one is that people will just miss this out, QED on this thread.
Will you be amending the returns where the tick has been omitted? To paraphrase a point SteveHa made on another thread, the tick (X, whatever) does not seem crucial (or even relevant) to establishing the tax liability. So requiring it, as you say in your OP, seems pointless.
Yet that it's on the declaration page seems to suggest HMRC thinks it matters. But surely there won't be enquiries along the lines of "you didn't tick the box, why not?"... will there?!
I've changed my mind. I agree with you now.
No, I'm not amending. I've declared the SEISS, the liability is right, HMRC will be paid exactly what's due.
The return form can require information "reasonably required" "[f]or the purpose of establishing the amounts in which a person is chargeable to income tax...".
If "establishing" involves only the information the taxpayer needs to self-assess and the present or absence of a tick in a box does not lead to any change in the SA, then the information the a asks for is not reasonably required. But there must be exceptions. But common sense suggests it is reasonable for HMRC to ask for other data, such as the agent details. In Cotter and Derry the SA suggested to HMRC that they redesign the TR form to make it plain which boxes (in)form the SA and which don't, but HMRC have ignored that advice. Which suggest that HMRC has the same respect for the SC as does the Daily Mail.
If HMRC have a role in "establishing" ie in deciding whether to open an enquiry into the return and then coming to a conclusion on what sums the SA should consist of, if an enquiry is opened, then it is reasonably required, I think. But I recall that HMRC accepted that the former PSC questions in the return were not reasonably required and eventually dropped them. So I might be wrong here. Has 'reasonably required' has been litigated?
Has 'reasonably required' has been litigated?
I reckon so.
But if all information pertinent to the tax (which, whisper it quietly in this forum, might include having to make WSNs) has been supplied before you tick a box to say that is the case, the question is: what does the tick do? And that is a very valid question, IMHO. The box doesn't even ask whether you have declared all pertinent information in the white spaces; just that you have included the income as taxable... which at first read does not differentiate between the 100% rate and the 0% one.
Can you cite the cases?
0%? Aren't correctly claimed grants taxed at the TP's marginal rate (which might be 0%, of course).
Another example of a question that the TMA gives HMRC no right to ask is Q20 on the trust return concerning TRS compliance. If tax returns are to be used for nudges, why not ask if the trustees have brushed their teeth, oiled their cricket bat and so on?
Can you cite the cases?
I reckon not. (Though see Wales v Ten Bears and Wales v Fletcher, 1976.)
Helpfully, my main technical reference is down today (I think it's come out in sympathy with my brain), so... I'm even more useless than usual. As you've probably noticed from other threads today too.
Can you cite the cases?
0%? Aren't correctly claimed grants taxed at the TP's marginal rate (which might be 0%, of course).
Another example of a question that the TMA gives HMRC no right to ask is Q20 on the trust return concerning TRS compliance. If tax returns are to be used for nudges, why not ask if the trustees have brushed their teeth, oiled their cricket bat and so on?
Is it on the SA100, because not everyone has to fill in Self employed form when in self assessment
Is it on the SA100, because not everyone has to fill in Self employed form when in self assessment
What exceptions are you thinking of ?
This point is making my brain hurt.
Prima facie, I can't imagine circumstances in which someone who is not self-employed could have received a CJRS or SEISS grant declarable on the SA100.
I'm now worrying about the phrase "any of your businesses" and wondering if any majority owners of Ltd Cos, who would be likely also to be Directors filling in Employment pages and/or receiving Divs declared on page 3, might be confused into thinking that in some bizarre cross-checking mechanism they are here being asked about those Ltd Cos. The notes in SA150 sort of make it clear that they aren't, but not as clearly as one would like.
What should be made of the word 'must' in Q20.1? Is there a sanction for non-compliance? Or is it bullying? Odd word if Q20.1 is merely a nudge.
