Personal Allowance help

drt1710

zygurat789 wrote: »

There is a further compklication. If you have code numbers for each job then you need to receive pay for the last week or month of the year otherwise you will not make full use of the allowances which is why it is better to have the code on as few as employments as possible.
I got the impression that your daughter was a teacher and that the Subway & Shoezone were temporaryish jobs whereas she was always likely to be a teacher and she should soon earn £4,000 in each of her teaching jobs.
When one of my daughters did this she was never out of work.
Whatever happens come month 12/week52 you should add all the employmemts together to make sure she has received all her allowances. Any repayment claim will have to be accompanied by P60s so they need to be kept safe

She is a newly qualified teacher, but as of yet has not been able to secure a full time teaching post, so she is managing with Shoezone and Subway which pay little but are permanent, the supply jobs are just giving her some experience of teaching and topping up her money.

Once she has a full time teaching post, that will be her only job so it will be easier to sort her tax.

I assume that if we allocate her a tax code of 213 to Shoezone, which allows her to earn £41p/w tax free, if she does any overtime it will only be the overtime that is taxed at 20%?

Also, can anyone explain why she would have been taxed so much on last months wages? £166 out of £280? She has never paid any tax on her Shoezone wages before. The wages that month were a lot higher than usual as she was available for covering someone elses absence.

Thanks again
Duncan

zygurat789

drt1710 wrote: »

She is a newly qualified teacher, but as of yet has not been able to secure a full time teaching post, so she is managing with Shoezone and Subway which pay little but are permanent, the supply jobs are just giving her some experience of teaching and topping up her money.

Once she has a full time teaching post, that will be her only job so it will be easier to sort her tax.

I assume that if we allocate her a tax code of 213 to Shoezone, which allows her to earn £41p/w tax free, if she does any overtime it will only be the overtime that is taxed at 20%?

Also, can anyone explain why she would have been taxed so much on last months wages? £166 out of £280? She has never paid any tax on her Shoezone wages before. The wages that month were a lot higher than usual as she was available for covering someone elses absence.

Thanks again
Duncan

Tax is cumulative.
If she had previously to October earned £1000 with a code of 213 then there would be no tax.
If in November this code was changed to 113 then
November total earnings £1166 less tax free 7 months 660 taxable £506 tax @ 20% £101.2.

Anothe thing to look out for is if no tax has been paid in any of these 4 jobs come Week52/month12 this also means that there may be a repayment.

nomunnofun

drt1710 wrote: »

I assume that if we allocate her a tax code of 213 to Shoezone, which allows her to earn £41p/w tax free, if she does any overtime it will only be the overtime that is taxed at 20%?

Also, can anyone explain why she would have been taxed so much on last months wages? £166 out of £280? She has never paid any tax on her Shoezone wages before. The wages that month were a lot higher than usual as she was available for covering someone elses absence.

Thanks again
Duncan

1) yes - only the overtime taxed at 20%

2) Any employer with a bit of wit would have given the tax office a call and pointed this out. In my day, a new code on a week 1/month 1 basis could then have have been issued to prevent this.

Maybe things have changed.

patanne

Yes, I certainly would have been checking with them to see if it should have M1 not cumulative. Unfortunately, it seems to be "computer says" these days. I would certainly have been having a quite word to explain why it had happened & suggesting that the person had a word with HMRC. I have in the past had a few conversations along the lines of - it is none of my business and please don't feel the need to explain the reasons for this but your tax code -. I guess these days that would be considered breaching data protection rules. I considered it looking after fellow employees interests.