£ 1000 employer compensation

neilmcl

Grumpy_chap said:

Ltd co directors are employees and happen to also be office holders

Being a director in itself does not make a person an employee of the company. Only by entering into a service/employment contract does a director become an employee. The rules for tax purposes are different.

Grumpy_chap

The definition used for CJRS was being on PAYE payroll.

neilmcl

Grumpy_chap said:

The definition used for CJRS was being on PAYE payroll.

As I said, a special case was made for directors on PAYE for the purpose of the CJRS only but they were never referred to as employees, so don't be surprised if this bonus doesn't apply.

Untill full details come out we can only speculate but personally, and as a ltd co. director who's taken part in the scheme, I don't think it's strictly fair that we'd be allowed this sum, but that's strictly my own opinion.

jimkelly

And as mentioned earlier, there is already very little support available for this group of people - whether that be by there own making (dividends) or through bad luck with timing or whatever (already been discussed ad infinitum) - without them being further penalised/excluded from support.

If you don't feel that you need/want the "bonus", then don't apply for it.  Simples.

Perhaps you could apply for it and donate it to a worthwhile cause, such as a local foodbank - especially with the vast increase in demand there has been lately from said excluded?

dunstonh

Yeah, I have the most risk averse accountant ever, and he mentions this every year. But honestly, £ 100 pw seems so small that I don't worry about it causing problems. I don't employ any other office staff, so realistically she could work two or three days and it still be viable.

Does she earn enough on the other job to qualify for the state pension?

Jeremy535897

Grumpy_chap said:

Ltd co directors are employees and happen to also be office holders

A director is an office holder. They may also be employees, but don't have to be. For example, a managing director of a plc will have a contract of employment in the same way that the company's employees will have.

Jaco70

dunstonh said:

Yeah, I have the most risk averse accountant ever, and he mentions this every year. But honestly, £ 100 pw seems so small that I don't worry about it causing problems. I don't employ any other office staff, so realistically she could work two or three days and it still be viable.

Does she earn enough on the other job to qualify for the state pension?

Yes my financial advisor flagged this up earlier this year. I only have another year until I qualify for the full pension, and my wife is on track also, although she has many more years before she qualifies as she’s ten years younger. She’s paying in enough though. Thanks 

gettingtheresometime

As a side issue if HMRC are waiting bunting February 2020 to accept claims because the January 2020 RTI will then have been submitted, what's to stop an employer giving notice of redundancy at the beginning of January or even in December so the employee is included in that return but made redundant as soon as the qualifying date is hit?

jimkelly

gettingtheresometime said:

As a side issue if HMRC are waiting bunting February 2020 to accept claims because the January 2020 RTI will then have been submitted, what's to stop an employer giving notice of redundancy at the beginning of January or even in December so the employee is included in that return but made redundant as soon as the qualifying date is hit?

Nothing, but the question is why would they bother?

Either there is work available for the employee moving forward, or there isn't.

It would cost them more to keep the employee on, in order to received a £1000 (which is then taxable) bonus, than it would to just make them redundant in the first place.

Jaco70

jimkelly said:

gettingtheresometime said:

As a side issue if HMRC are waiting bunting February 2020 to accept claims because the January 2020 RTI will then have been submitted, what's to stop an employer giving notice of redundancy at the beginning of January or even in December so the employee is included in that return but made redundant as soon as the qualifying date is hit?

Nothing, but the question is why would they bother?

Either there is work available for the employee moving forward, or there isn't.

It would cost them more to keep the employee on, in order to received a £1000 (which is then taxable) bonus, than it would to just make them redundant in the first place.

Yes I totally agree. I don’t think it’s an incentive to keep people on who you haven’t really got employment for. It’s just a taxpayer funded bonus for some people, like me, who’ve legitimately furloughed workers during the full lockdown but have now taken them back because work has returned to near normality. I’m not convinced it’s taxpayer money well spent, but Rishi is cleverer than me, so I’ll take it.