I assume they'll be using HMRC's basic PAYE tools which is free.
Yes you save NI, some generous employers also add back their NI saving so the employee gets a higher contribution at no extra cost to the employer (from what they were paying before the sacrifice).
Ensure it is a genuine TPR email. The last few days we've seen fake emails using TPR's name with the heading "Complete your declaration".
Yes I've seen a couple of these in the last week. They look very convincing except the dates don't match up and they have used a spurious PAYE reference.
This might be a common issue, as I have been finding exactly the same problem on several clients.
Haven't reported to HMRC - given the quality of their responses to you all I doubt it would make any difference - but it's been like that for a month or so.
Not all payroll clients have to file a P11D or P11D(b).
No P11D/P11D(b) is expected where HMRC have not issued the P11D(b), although of course you may still need to file one if there are benefits/expenses.
The link Moonbeam has given is what I use where there is a nil return due, and this has worked well.
Yes - we submit online but any amendments have to be submitted on paper with a covering letter.
Not strictly compliant...
mr. mischief wrote:
Note that some of what follows is not strictly compliant - you could argue -
2. Where staff are being paid more regularly, I am noting this as "approved loan repayments" on the payslips. As far as I can tell there is no statutory definition of the difference between an approved loan repayment and a salary advance. Until there is one I am in my view compliant, or at least I will not be saying "hands up guv" if HMRC should ever pick me up on this.
As you say, not strictly compliant - if HMRC pick up on it they'll say that you're making regular salary payments at the more frequent interval so you should be calculating PAYE and NIC each payment. It's not really a loan, it's the payment of wages. Whether or not that's in the legislation, however, I will leave to other more learned colleagues!
If you just make 1 submission in month 4, HMRC's records will show that you have not made a submission for months 1-3 so may chase you for the FPS in the first 3 months. The year to date data will be correct, but it won't match up properly. They may also tell you you have overpaid for those first months as a result.
I would suggest restoring to month 1 and sending the FPS for each month, if Sage won't let you send them after rolling into the next period.
From the legislation it seems the company would not even need to have a PAYE scheme and so not need to submit - but would like to hear what Tom and Matt say on this...
As per my post earlier, you are right that there is no need to have a PAYE scheme if the employee is paid BELOW the LEL regardless of their age, provided there is nothing that could cause them to have a tax liability under PAYE - e.g. second job or state/private pension that would be coded out (box C on the P46).
The under 16's would, I am led to understand, not have to be reported even if a scheme exists, as long as they would not have any liability (as I read someone post elsewhere recently, we all have to pay tax from the day we're born to the day we die, and often beyond).
@ Chris - ih3f9764bg1g
Thanks for your replies but I just want to check . . . . .what is the position where (say) there's just one employee who is OVER 16 but is paid UNDER the LEL?
Chris, my original email should still stand in this situation. If that employee has no liability to tax (i.e. they don't have a P46 ticked at box C or a tax code with net allowances smaller than their pay), then the PAYE scheme could be closed (assuming there is one in the first place) and nothing to report under RTI.
As I said before, if that situation changes then you would have to re-register and then begin reporting in RTI. Tom has confirmed that under-16's paid below LEL don't have to be reported:
I asked the specific question of the Developer Support Team at HMRC because it came up in another thread here, and I got this response:
This has come up before and the response advised by the RTI programme is as follows:
“If the paper boys/girls are under 16 then there is no need to include these on an FPS as they cannot claim Universal Credits".