Noob question >>

The_Mighty_Gusset

As others have said, all you can do is pay him the proportion of your wages, after tax, that he worked and for which you were paid.
So, if you were paid (say) £400 for 40 hours and he worked 15 of those, then you'd owe him £150.
Or, if he worked one full day out of five, then you owe him 1/5th, or 20%, or (in this case) £80.
Next time, think these things through fully before agreeing to do them.

*Kat*

Thanks everyone I figured it out...I think :P haha

birkee

*Kat* wrote: »

huh? lol, he does work there yeah, we tried to do a shift swap but they wouldn't let us because the store doesnt have any overtime, so it was authorised that he can work the shift for me and I take the £££ out of my wages and give it to him?

This can't be legal?

Hope you weren't out robbing a bank, and producing work records as evidence it wasn't you, because you were at work?:)

*Kat*

why are "authorised" and "shift swap" in quotation marks? Is there a reason for that? Also, we're on the same tax code...we need to clock in at work, so it will come up as an exception with personnel. I asked a manager, they SIGNED THE SHEET to say it was okay. I'm not putting up with any of this judgemental crap tbh.

John_Pierpoint

This is not "tax fraud" as the tax and national insurance has been paid. It is just a good example of how red tape (and budgetary control) erode our freedom to deal commercially as we see fit.
"Your cannot fill in for my shift, when I want to take my child to hospital" because the tax man says so - pathetic.

We are back to "the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath" are we not.

*Kat*

Well, I would think as a manager they would know more about this process as me. I am a student, I had to write my dissertation, I requested the days off, I asked for shift swaps and they refused it. It was a last resort. Not something that happens regularly.

Regshoe

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Ahem

You are now an employer. Congratulations.

He is now self-employed and would need to register as such with HMRC.

I'm not disagreeing that this whole transaction is completely dodgy, but surely what you've stated there is contradictory.

If somebody is (solely) self employed you can't be their employer!

serious_saver

I am not judging you in anyway because I would have done the same thing in your situation but I think your employer has done something dodgy. It may not seem like a big deal but there are implications to things like this. For example,

-If you both claimed rebates you would get more than your colleague because his tax has been paid from your account and as far as HMRC are aware you earned the money and paid the tax.
-If you were on fringe of a tax band it could push you over into higher tax and him down into lower.
-When it comes to NI contributions if he needs to top up his with voluntary contributions to make the full amount for the year, he will end up paying more than he should have.

You have personally done nothing wrong as you have requested the time off and this was given to you as a solution by your employer. They should, in theory, know more about this than you.

As you're a student I would definitely recommend you check to see if you're due a rebate. When I was a student my hours would change from week to week so some weeks I was charged far too much tax. It was well worth it when rebate time came around. Suggest to your friend that he does it too, he may thank you for it.

Good luck with your dissertation.

glider3560

There is another implication too if you give your friend the money.

1. You pay friend, so you are even.
2. Friend complains to HR department they haven't been paid by the company for work done. This IS the case as they are employed by the shop, not you.
3. HR pay friend, then make a deduction from your wages as you didn't work the hours you were paid for.
4. You lose the money as you've paid friend and had it deducted from your next pay.

I'd be going higher than your manager (e.g. HR or payroll) and asking them to fix the problem (i.e. actually pay the person who worked the hours).

Sambucus_Nigra

Regshoe wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing that this whole transaction is completely dodgy, but surely what you've stated there is contradictory.

If somebody is (solely) self employed you can't be their employer!

Sorry - it was an either or in the first place! Rather than an 'and'.

So many implications about this.