Taxable earnings declared in wrong tax year (Asda)

ScotsLass84

Hi, thanks everyone for replying. I havent spoke to HMRC personally, but others I work with have been given options of paying back over 1 year, 2 years or 3 years, one was told to send a cheque asap.

Sorry for my mistake about dates. Yes, Thursday 5th was circled, they then changed that to Friday 6th, so i take it that doesn't make any difference?

Its not really the money that's the issue, its just frustrating because its nationwide and they knew about it and chose not to pass on the information.

Thanks again for swift replies.

jem16

ScotsLass84 wrote: »

Hi, thanks everyone for replying. I havent spoke to HMRC personally, but others I work with have been given options of paying back over 1 year, 2 years or 3 years, one was told to send a cheque asap.

Thanks for letting us know about the options. I would imagine that those asked to pay it right away are those that cannot have it coded out as they earn less than the personal allowance.

Sorry for my mistake about dates. Yes, Thursday 5th was circled, they then changed that to Friday 6th, so i take it that doesn't make any difference?

No. It would just have caused the underpayment a year earlier.

Its not really the money that's the issue, its just frustrating because its nationwide and they knew about it and chose not to pass on the information.

Thanks again for swift replies.

Informing staff should always happen but unfortunately doesn't.

ScotsLass84

We were finding it strange that someone with a 28hr contract is due slightly more than someone on a 38hr contract. Ill be at work later this week and speak to everyone again, but yeah it sounds like this will be coming out automatically starting next year, last Id heard.

chrisbur

ScotsLass84 wrote: »

Sorry for my mistake about dates. Yes, Thursday 5th was circled, they then changed that to Friday 6th, so i take it that doesn't make any difference?

Its not really the money that's the issue, its just frustrating because its nationwide and they knew about it and chose not to pass on the information.

Thanks again for swift replies.

I think that there may be some confusion over dates creeping in here. The year in question should be 2013 when 5 April fell on the Friday payday which is what triggers a week 56 for employees paid every four weeks.
I totally agree that it would have been better had the information been given before it all happened. HMRC did ask employers to do so in the bulletin but I feel that something a bit more obvious was called for. After all the week 53/54/56 has been around for a long time and I wonder why HMRC mentioned it this year, even if it was tucked away. Was it perhaps that this is the first year when every-ones tax is being checked by the new computer and they knew this was going to be thrown up for a lot of employees. I have only had experience of week 53 tax and in all my years doing payroll only came across one person who had their week 53 extra allowance taken back and that was because they were doing a self-assessment.
I would like to know
1 In the past were the under-deductions all spotted by HMRC or is this something new?
2 Were employees regularly asked for repayments or was it only employees who had to be looked at by someone in the tax office eg, self assessment people?
3 Have only heard of four-weekly people being contacted so far, is there a figure below which you "get away with it" and if so is it fair that say a four weekly paid has to repay it but a weekly who gets a quarter of the benefit but gets it four times more often does not?

EDIT Posts numbers 44 and 45 answer the above two questions.
Under-deductions caused by week 53/54/56 were not picked up unless tax office were asked to look into them (apart from self assessments)and when this happened they advised the employee that they might be better off not asking.

jem16

ScotsLass84 wrote: »

We were finding it strange that someone with a 28hr contract is due slightly more than someone on a 38hr contract.

The amount will vary depending on how much is normally earned. For those who are taxpayers anyway and earning over £8105 last tax year, it should amount to £125 approximately. Anyone earning less than £8105 in a normal 13 pay year but more in a 14 pay year would have a different amount.

jem16

chrisbur wrote: »

I think that there may be some confusion over dates creeping in here. The year in question should be 2013 when 5 April fell on the Friday payday which is what triggers a week 56 for employees paid every four weeks.

Yes it is.

However I think ScotsLass is referring to April 2012 and wondered if being paid on 5th April 2012 as opposed to 6th April (which was the correct pay date) would have fixed the problem.

ScotsLass84

jem16 wrote: »

Yes it is.

However I think ScotsLass is referring to April 2012 and wondered if being paid on 5th April 2012 as opposed to 6th April (which was the correct pay date) would have fixed the problem.

Yes, that's correct, in that comment I was referring to April 2012, but overall I am referring to 2012-2013

chrisbur

ScotsLass84 wrote: »

Yes, that's correct, in that comment I was referring to April 2012, but overall I am referring to 2012-2013

I would guess that they had Thursday circled for 2012 because they did pay on Thursday. Friday 6 April in 2012 was a bank holiday (Good Friday) so they probably paid a day earlier. But this would not affect the official payday as when a payday has to be moved due to falling on a non-banking day then for tax it is treated as if it was still paid on the official day.

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush

chrisbur wrote: »

I would like to know
1 In the past were the under-deductions all spotted by HMRC or is this something new?
2 Were employees regularly asked for repayments or was it only employees who had to be looked at by someone in the tax office eg, self assessment people?
3 Have only heard of four-weekly people being contacted so far, is there a figure below which you "get away with it" and if so is it fair that say a four weekly paid has to repay it but a weekly who gets a quarter of the benefit but gets it four times more often does not?

1) Yes, they would have been (and were) spotted before.
2) It wasn't restricted to SA.
3) People who work in HMRC have told me that the tolerance is about £50, below which they'll let an underpayment slide (outside of SA, obviously - no tolerances there). For those paid weekly and getting a week 53 payment, they get an extra £155 of allowances in the extra week for 12/13 (assuming the standard 810L code). The tax due on that is about £30, so is below the tolerance. HMRC will still notice it, but they'll pretend it's cleared and move on.

Those on a 4 weekly cycle will get an extra 4 weeks allowances, so 4 x £155 = £623. The tax due on that is £124 or so, well above the tolerances so they'll be asked to pay it back.

chrisbur

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush wrote: »

3) People who work in HMRC have told me that the tolerance is about £50, below which they'll let an underpayment slide (outside of SA, obviously - no tolerances there). For those paid weekly and getting a week 53 payment, they get an extra £155 of allowances in the extra week for 12/13 (assuming the standard 810L code). The tax due on that is about £30, so is below the tolerance. HMRC will still notice it, but they'll pretend it's cleared and move on.

Those on a 4 weekly cycle will get an extra 4 weeks allowances, so 4 x £155 = £623. The tax due on that is £124 or so, well above the tolerances so they'll be asked to pay it back.

This seems to confirm that if you owe £30 every 5 or 6 years you do not have to pay it but owe £120 every 22 years and you do have to pay it.