Rishi Sunak to give HMRC ‘draconian’ powers to reclaim hundreds of millions

chirper1

I did not apply directly. I was sent a letter by my council that my business is eligible for a one-off cash grant (SBGF) of £10,000. The only requirement was a council tax bill showing rate relief. So I do meet the eligibility requirements, but based on the inews article do i need to return the money now because my business is a profitable business?

jfinnie

I don't think you have anything to worry about with respect to that grant.  Unlike many of the other schemes that have a rather nebulous "need to have been impacted by Coronavirus" eligibility clause, there was no such qualification for this scheme.  Have eligible property in an allowed business sector, get grant, that was it.
Even the "need to have been impacted by Coronavirus" clause is going to be hard to police.  What exactly is "need to have been impacted by"?   That's not something that can purely be measured on a paper basis.  If you had a growing business you may record increased sales and still be worse off than you were expecting to be, and hence impacted by but better off than you were last year.
It will be interesting to see what the detail is.
I've a feeling this will concentrate on the obvious problems of blatant non-compliance - multiple BBLS, BBLS in excess of turnover, furlough abuse, etc.

gt94sss2

Assuming you meet the eligibility requirements at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-youre-eligible-for-the-coronavirus-small-business-grant-fund you’re fine.
i imagine you do, as your Council would have used their records to confirm you were eligible before contacting you.

sharpe106

chirper1 said:

I did not apply directly. I was sent a letter by my council that my business is eligible for a one-off cash grant (SBGF) of £10,000. The only requirement was a council tax bill showing rate relief. So I do meet the eligibility requirements, but based on the inews article do i need to return the money now because my business is a profitable business?

As you meet the criteria then no you won't need to pay it back. A few of the other schemes had a fair bit of small print.

hb2

"Ms Fernie also advised that any firm or individual that has benefited from the furlough schemes or grants should also keep evidence that employees paid under the schemes would still have been employed if the pandemic had not happened."

Which seems to fly in the face of the advice that past employees could be re-hired specifically to be furloughed.

daveyjp

hb2 said:

"Ms Fernie also advised that any firm or individual that has benefited from the furlough schemes or grants should also keep evidence that employees paid under the schemes would still have been employed if the pandemic had not happened."

Which seems to fly in the face of the advice that past employees could be re-hired specifically to be furloughed.

That was aimed at employees which had recently left one job for another and weren't eligible for furlough payment in their new role.

It was not designed for companies to re-employ redundant workers to take advantage of furlough.

I expect HMRC will be looking closely at companies which max out on furlough payments then make staff redundant.

Jeremy535897

daveyjp said:

hb2 said:

"Ms Fernie also advised that any firm or individual that has benefited from the furlough schemes or grants should also keep evidence that employees paid under the schemes would still have been employed if the pandemic had not happened."

Which seems to fly in the face of the advice that past employees could be re-hired specifically to be furloughed.

That was aimed at employees which had recently left one job for another and weren't eligible for furlough payment in their new role.

It was not designed for companies to re-employ redundant workers to take advantage of furlough.

I expect HMRC will be looking closely at companies which max out on furlough payments then make staff redundant.

Surely there's no difference between an ex-employer who rehires someone who was made redundant (or, as was later allowed, chose to leave) but their new job hasn't started, and an ex employer who rehires someone they made redundant who hadn't managed to find a new job?

daveyjp

Jeremy535897 said:

daveyjp said:

hb2 said:

"Ms Fernie also advised that any firm or individual that has benefited from the furlough schemes or grants should also keep evidence that employees paid under the schemes would still have been employed if the pandemic had not happened."

Which seems to fly in the face of the advice that past employees could be re-hired specifically to be furloughed.

That was aimed at employees which had recently left one job for another and weren't eligible for furlough payment in their new role.

It was not designed for companies to re-employ redundant workers to take advantage of furlough.

I expect HMRC will be looking closely at companies which max out on furlough payments then make staff redundant.

Surely there's no difference between an ex-employer who rehires someone who was made redundant (or, as was later allowed, chose to leave) but their new job hasn't started, and an ex employer who rehires someone they made redundant who hadn't managed to find a new job?

There is a difference,  you are assuming the person's role was made redundant, I'm not.

I have known people leave a job on Friday, do a week of their new job, hate it and move back to their old job the following week as the vacancy hadn't been filled.

Jeremy535897

daveyjp said:

Jeremy535897 said:

daveyjp said:

hb2 said:

"Ms Fernie also advised that any firm or individual that has benefited from the furlough schemes or grants should also keep evidence that employees paid under the schemes would still have been employed if the pandemic had not happened."

Which seems to fly in the face of the advice that past employees could be re-hired specifically to be furloughed.

That was aimed at employees which had recently left one job for another and weren't eligible for furlough payment in their new role.

It was not designed for companies to re-employ redundant workers to take advantage of furlough.

I expect HMRC will be looking closely at companies which max out on furlough payments then make staff redundant.

Surely there's no difference between an ex-employer who rehires someone who was made redundant (or, as was later allowed, chose to leave) but their new job hasn't started, and an ex employer who rehires someone they made redundant who hadn't managed to find a new job?

There is a difference,  you are assuming the person's role was made redundant, I'm not.

I have known people leave a job on Friday, do a week of their new job, hate it and move back to their old job the following week as the vacancy hadn't been filled.

No doubt, but the original guidance did not cover such a situation, only the situation where the employee had been made redundant by the first employer, yet the government encouraged the old employer to rehire them, even moving the date from 28 February to 19 March.

md_26

every person that furlough has been claimed for should have a letter sent to their house asking what dates they had furlough and what dates they had annual leave this year to make sure the employer isn't falsifying claims.