Seiss

sylvia61

My husband has received the self employed grant for mar,apr,May using the 3 years back from 16/17,17/18,18/19,he has been self employed for over 10 years. He is entitled to apply for the second grant but we were wondering if he submits tax return for 2019/2020 will that be included for calculation this time? The2016/2017 year used last time was a very bad year profit wise!

sam8787

No it will be the same as the 1st. If we could all use our 19/20 tax returns then we could all doctor them to give us all extra money in the grant as the seiss was announced before the end of the tax year

Jeremy535897

Full details should be available on 12 June, but the announcements so far indicate it will be calculated on the same profits as the first grant.

Grumpy_chap

The rules are set to be published 12th June.
That said, there are no indications that the eligibility criteria will be any different.
If you do think there is a possibility that 2019-20 tax return will be considered, best to get it in before 12th June when the rules are announced, otherwise risk missing the deadline for submission and consideration to SEISS.  Given that the normal submission deadline is end January, I would not expect 2019-20 figures to be taken into account.

sylvia61

sam8787 said:

No it will be the same as the 1st. If we could all use our 19/20 tax returns then we could all doctor them to give us all extra money in the grant as the seiss was announced before the end of the tax year

Ok we weren’t thinking of “doctoring” anything it just so happens that 16/17 was a particularly bad year that’s all. The first grant could be applied for mid May so the new tax year 19/20 was well under way by then but my husband normally does his tax return online in January so hadn’t completed at that point. Thanks for your answer

sylvia61

Jeremy535897 said:

Full details should be available on 12 June, but the announcements so far indicate it will be calculated on the same profits as the first grant.

Thankyou

hb2

OP, you might not be thinking of 'doctoring' your records to get more money - but there are plenty of people who would if later figures were to be taken into account!

SpiderLegs

My wife’s (already submitted) 19/20 return shows a 50% increase from 18/19 and a 200% increase from 17/18.

Is it fair that her grant three year average was nowhere near her current level? No.
Is it fair that she continues to operate (at 60%) but gets the same grant as someone who is unable to operate? No.

Will she get another grant using exactly the same criteria? Most probably.

Would people have complained if the govt had spent six months working out the quirks of the scheme before paying anyone anything? I think we can take a guess...


swings and roundabouts.

Jeremy535897

I have to say that I think the government is being a bit paranoid. On the first grant, they actually allowed people a month to file 2018/19 who were already late in doing so (in other words, not model taxpayers). The late filers could have done all sorts of legal things, such as disclaim capital allowances, or vary profit shares between husband and wife, to maximise the grant. There seems to be some sort of fear that people will inflate 2019/20 profits with fake transactions. Look what happens if you do (assuming you traded for 3 years):

Add in fake profits of £3,600. That increases the two grants by £3,600/36 x 3 x 1.5 = £450. After tax and NIC that is say £320. The extra tax and NIC on £3,600 is £1,044. The more idiots that did that, the better off the government would be. There would be cases where you could avoid the £50,000 cap or 50% test with fake transactions, but those rules should arguably never have been included in the first place.

SpiderLegs

Jeremy535897 said:

I have to say that I think the government is being a bit paranoid. On the first grant, they actually allowed people a month to file 2018/19 who were already late in doing so (in other words, not model taxpayers). The late filers could have done all sorts of legal things, such as disclaim capital allowances, or vary profit shares between husband and wife, to maximise the grant. There seems to be some sort of fear that people will inflate 2019/20 profits with fake transactions. Look what happens if you do (assuming you traded for 3 years):

Add in fake profits of £3,600. That increases the two grants by £3,600/36 x 3 x 1.5 = £450. After tax and NIC that is say £320. The extra tax and NIC on £3,600 is £1,044. The more idiots that did that, the better off the government would be. There would be cases where you could avoid the £50,000 cap or 50% test with fake transactions, but those rules should arguably never have been included in the first place.

It’s very little to do with fake profits.
To make the next payment under the current criteria they have to change  0.8 to 0.7. They already know the full cost of it and everyone continues to operate under the same rules.

To include 19/20 requires recalcing everything on a new data set. It also opens up legal challenge because the return deadline is in law at jan 31st. You can’t artificially amend that deadline because then you treat those who can (or have) submit 19/20 before this revised date differently to those who cannot.

sylvia61

SpiderLegs said:

My wife’s (already submitted) 19/20 return shows a 50% increase from 18/19 and a 200% increase from 17/18.

Is it fair that her grant three year average was nowhere near her current level? No.
Is it fair that she continues to operate (at 60%) but gets the same grant as someone who is unable to operate? No.

Will she get another grant using exactly the same criteria? Most probably.

Would people have complained if the govt had spent six months working out the quirks of the scheme before paying anyone anything? I think we can take a guess...


swings and roundabouts.

Absolutely, I wasn’t complaining !my husbands is the same 50% less in 16/17 than the last 2 years,that’s all,and we had heard that the 19/20 could be used in fact I’m sure Martin had said that in the beginning but it may have been changed. I’m not talking large amounts of money here he recvd less than half of the maximum grant but we are grateful to receive this. Thanks for your reply