Member Since: 4th Apr 2010
22nd Jul 2020
Thank you for your advice.
s15 (SSCBA 1992) relates to Class 4 NIC which is not applicable in my client's case, but in directing me to SSCBA 1992 I think I can rely on the wording in S11(4) to exempt my client from Class 2 NIC.
21st Jul 2020
To make ends meet she also has a job for which she pays Class 1 contributions that clocked a qualifying year in 2019/20
21st Jul 2020
Yes, it is a continuation of the same business, and that is my whole point. Her total profit from this one business is below the Class 2 threshold.
But following the death of her husband my client was left as the sole-surviving business partner, and so from the date of his death her trading activity can no longer be reported on the partnership pages of her tax return.
This, together with the seasonal nature of the business has caused the anomoly of a profit being reported for the partnership period of this business and a loss being reported for the sole-trader period, which in total is below the Class 2 threshold, but the partnership element of the profit is above the threshold and I am unsure as to whether or not this triggers a class 2 liability.
21st Jul 2020
Thank you , but this doesn't help as it relates to a situation where the tax payer had two separate self-employments one profitable & the other loss making.
In my client's case her self-employment relates to one single continuous business which has had to be split into two parts on her tax return because her husband died leaving her as a sole-surviving partner in the business.
16th Jun 2020
Yes, we are in Scotland, and I think you have nailed it.
It's the only logical (illogical given the rules !!) explanation.
Thank you for your help.
12th Jun 2020
Thank you everyone for taking the time to reply.
A great example of Accounting Web at its best.
8th Jun 2020
Thank you to both respondents for your advice
24th Apr 2020
I completely understand that CJRS is there to put money into peoples pockets, but this just feels like milking the system to me.
The employee choose to leave, and if they had stayed would not have been furloughed at all, and at the very least would still have been at their desk in the business premises throughout the week ending Friday 20th.
I have no problem if others think March 16th is the correct furlough start date in this case, I'm just looking for a consensus of opinion in the absence of detailed guidance on the matter.
18th Apr 2020
As I understand it, the whole principle of RTI is that you report the payment date of your employees wages.
If, as you say, the employer has made the RTI submissions then he must have reported a payment date for these wages. If he has no intention of paying the wages until the furlough funding is received, and he cannot yet know what date that will be, then he is not in a position to make a valid RTI submission.
Employers need to understand the the government is not paying their employees' wages. The employer is responsible for paying the wages. The furlough grant is simply funding that an employer can claim to help to keep their business afloat, albeit that it is a condition of claiming this grant that it must be used to finance the payment of the employees' wages and cannot be used for another purpose.
21st Mar 2020
That would certainly solve a problem and aid cash flow. Do you have any references to support this view ?