Closing date for furlough applications

leitmotif

unholyangel said:

I know there are a lot of people on the internet who make stuff up and then insist it is correct. I don't. If I'm unsure or just supposing, I will say so. If I argue a point quite vehemently (as I am doing now) I can guarantee it is not just an opinion of mine but something based in fact. Not trying to beat anyone down

That's precisely what I'm looking for: vehement but informed, intelligent challenging of my position. As opposed to the type of post I mentioned earlier and which eventually cropped up from one user in particular: not constructive, motivated by righteousness, jealousy or resentment, written by people who have elected to post on a money-saving forum but for some reason can't stomach people exploring the options in terms of minimising expenditure and (the flip side) maximising what's coming in (within the law, of course).

unholyangel said:

If your accountant is a good friend, why are you on here asking? Or would they charge you and therefore perhaps not the good friend you thought?

Because there are limits to what he will explore. He will give his interpretation, and is willing to listen to different interpretations that might challenge his own, and is willing to consider loopholes and so forth, but there comes a point at which he either says 'I'm an accountant, not a lawyer', or 'discussing that option might be against the code of conduct associated with my professional accreditation', and then I'm happy to drop the subject. In other words, I don't push it. Here, it's different. There are some people who are willing to explore things in detail, challenge as appropriate, and (hopefully) understand that going over hypothetical scenarios does not equate to a statement of intent. Presumably if they're accountants or lawyers who have a code of conduct to observe, they won't reply. If I wanted to break the law, I would simply break it. Besides, these threads could also prove useful to others. There may be people out there who are perfectly entitled to the money, thought otherwise, and through reading this kind of back-and-forth come to the conclusion that they should be applying after all.

leitmotif

unholyangel said:

And be aware that their power to request information is not limited to business records. 

Yes, I'm aware of their powers under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, for instance.

unholyangel

leitmotif said:

unholyangel said:

I know there are a lot of people on the internet who make stuff up and then insist it is correct. I don't. If I'm unsure or just supposing, I will say so. If I argue a point quite vehemently (as I am doing now) I can guarantee it is not just an opinion of mine but something based in fact. Not trying to beat anyone down

That's precisely what I'm looking for: vehement but informed, intelligent challenging of my position. As opposed to the type of post I mentioned earlier and which eventually cropped up from one user in particular: not constructive, motivated by righteousness, jealousy or resentment, written by people who have elected to post on a money-saving forum but for some reason can't stomach people exploring the options in terms of minimising expenditure and (the flip side) maximising what's coming in (within the law, of course).

unholyangel said:

If your accountant is a good friend, why are you on here asking? Or would they charge you and therefore perhaps not the good friend you thought?

Because there are limits to what he will explore. He will give his interpretation, and is willing to listen to different interpretations that might challenge his own, and is willing to consider loopholes and so forth, but there comes a point at which he either says 'I'm an accountant, not a lawyer', or 'discussing that option might be against the code of conduct associated with my professional accreditation', and then I'm happy to drop the subject. In other words, I don't push it. Here, it's different. There are some people who are willing to explore things in detail, challenge as appropriate, and (hopefully) understand that going over hypothetical scenarios does not equate to a statement of intent. Presumably if they're accountants or lawyers who have a code of conduct to observe, they won't reply. If I wanted to break the law, I would simply break it. Besides, these threads could also prove useful to others. There may be people out there who are perfectly entitled to the money, thought otherwise, and through reading this kind of back-and-forth come to the conclusion that they should be applying after all.

If your accoutant won't explore it, surely that is a huge flashing neon warning sign? They're not solicitors, but when it comes to any kind of financial regulations, they can be as good as (some even better!) as their work is heavily governed by the rules & procedures in legislation. Definitely good for insight as to HMRC's approach to investigations. If they're not willing to explore it then chances are it's black & white with no wiggle room, very dodgy potentially veering into criminal conduct or it's too complex for them and if it's too complex for a qualified (assuming he is) accountant, it's definitely too complex for your average joe/jane on the internet. 

Posting online in an anonymous setting does give a little more freedom. But if you're held to a professional code of conduct, it can still be a very fine line to walk depending on the code. For example, you might not have to word things as carefully, but you still wouldn't be able to commit certain actions or partake in certain discussions that might amount to criminal conduct. 

leitmotif

unholyangel said:
If your accoutant won't explore it, surely that is a huge flashing neon warning sign?

Sure, but he's got a lot to lose and will always err on the side of caution. I don't see going on a forum such as this to explore the ins and outs of a scheme and work out what's permissible and what isn't as being any different to going on a TV licence forum to discuss what I can watch or listen to without needing a licence or going on a parking forum to discuss whether I can legally wriggle out of paying an £85 fine for having parked in a supermarket car park for 5 minutes over the 1-hour limit. 

Yes, he's a fully qualified, experienced accountant, but normally audits major corporations.

Grumpy_chap

I am confused why the issue of effectively furloughed and the issue of written notification and trying to back-date a letter arises.

Using today's date for example, it seems as though Leitmotif Limited has assessed that as of the end of business 28th April there is no further work that can be done and this is because of coronavirus.  So Leitmotif Limited will write to leitmotif (the individual) to notify of the decision and ask leitmotif to return a signed copy to Leitmotif Limited to agree.  Letter needs to cover all the details, e.g. Leitmotif Limited will / will not make up the different between furlough grant and normal pay.

If no work comes in then, at the next pay run, Leitmotif Limited pay leitmotif and submit a claim (so long as three weeks minimum furlough).  

If work does come in at some point in the three weeks, even if after only 1 day of furlough, Leitmotif Limited accept the order and call leitmotif back to work.  There is no furlough claim to be made and, at the next pay run Leitmotif Limited simply pay leitmotif as per normal.

If work then dries up again because of coronavirus, then Leitmotif Limited can simply write to leitmotif again to re-start furlough.  If this time, it is three weeks, then Leitmotif Limited will submit a claim for furlough grant as well at the next pay run.

unholyangel

Grumpy_chap said:

I am confused why the issue of effectively furloughed and the issue of written notification and trying to back-date a letter arises.

Using today's date for example, it seems as though Leitmotif Limited has assessed that as of the end of business 28th April there is no further work that can be done and this is because of coronavirus.  So Leitmotif Limited will write to leitmotif (the individual) to notify of the decision and ask leitmotif to return a signed copy to Leitmotif Limited to agree.  Letter needs to cover all the details, e.g. Leitmotif Limited will / will not make up the different between furlough grant and normal pay.

If no work comes in then, at the next pay run, Leitmotif Limited pay leitmotif and submit a claim (so long as three weeks minimum furlough).  

If work does come in at some point in the three weeks, even if after only 1 day of furlough, Leitmotif Limited accept the order and call leitmotif back to work.  There is no furlough claim to be made and, at the next pay run Leitmotif Limited simply pay leitmotif as per normal.

If work then dries up again because of coronavirus, then Leitmotif Limited can simply write to leitmotif again to re-start furlough.  If this time, it is three weeks, then Leitmotif Limited will submit a claim for furlough grant as well at the next pay run.

He was talking about retrospectively deciding he had been furloughed - if no work came in. 

As for the bit in bold, how can leitmotif limited check for working coming in when all of it's employees are furloughed? 

This can be nutshelled if you're a PSC/one man band into "if you're furloughed then you are closed for business". Ergo, if you are closed for business, there can be no new business coming in during this period. Leitmotif's exact predicament is what solicitor's are advising their PSC/sole director clients they'll need to consider - whether it's more beneficial to them to close for a period (with a notice to customers stating this) and furlough or whether it might be more beneficial to stay open on a reduced income. 

Personally I'd go middle group. Inform your customers you'll be available x date for a week perhaps. Furlough for min 3 weeks. Come off for a week - do whatever work is required (including claiming CJRS for the furloughed period) then furlough again. It maximises best of both worlds. You'll get 80% of 75% of your salary that period (which lets face it, is peanuts or they wouldn't be so desperate to find loopholes) and it condenses the potential business earnings for the remaining week you're not furloughed. 

But in that scenario you run the possible risk the final furlough period might be less than 3 weeks depending on the end of the scheme and your timings, so you'd have to factor that in. 

Grumpy_chap

I agree with you @unholyangel, either furloughed or not and the three-weeks on furlough / then how ever long working is a practical solution.

It does seem, though, that the OP just wants the furlough as free money, especially when considered in the light of their other thread "Legality of Martin Lewis's advice" in which they want to be furloughed and then work self employed sole trader at the same time.  Yet, in this thread, the OP wants to claim furlough from 10th March.

Any back-dating of furlough probably does need to be in place and the claim made before this month's pay run.  I'm not a lawyer / accountant, but that does seem reasonable.

leitmotif

Grumpy_chap said:

It does seem, though, that the OP just wants the furlough as free money, especially when considered in the light of their other thread "Legality of Martin Lewis's advice" in which they want to be furloughed and then work self employed sole trader at the same time.

The other thread explores the legality of Martin Lewis's advice and should not be taken as a statement of intent or a statement of desire.

Grumpy_chap said:

in this thread, the OP wants to claim furlough from 10th March.

As I've just mentioned in that other thread, the 10 March date in this thread is part of a hypothetical example.