SEISS 'adversely affected' if I bought extra WFH equipment (+more qs)?

justwhat

Jeremy535897 said:

 Being ill with coronavirus only counts if the business does worse without you (although one would hope it does, otherwise why are you bothering). It is true that there is no de minimis test, but if the only negative impact is extra costs due to PPE, and your sales have actually gone up, has your business really been adversely affected by coronavirus? You are back to the specific v aggregate test again, and I would say that if you are in business making PPE, and your profit massively increases, you can't claim the grant just because a worker was self isolating for 14 days, so your profits weren't as high as they might have been.

"Being ill with coronavirus only counts if the business does worse without you"
That not what the guidelines say. In the above case you may employ someone else or get your partner too take up the slack. The fact you are off work means it has adversely effected you / and your business. 
You may cancel the work and be able to catch up after the 14 days.
Every example in the guidelines does not mention adverse effect AND profit.(joe blogs in the street will always decide based on profit or financial  gain not adverse effect.)
Nowhere in the guideline does it say adversely effect and profit loss are the criteria / only criteria.
And there will be PPE suppliers that have used the furlough scheme. (customs clearance / logistics is shot to the uk at moment)

Jeremy535897

"Being ill with coronavirus only counts if the business does worse without you"
That not what the guidelines say. In the above case you may employ someone else or get your partner too take up the slack. The fact you are off work means it has adversely effected you / and your business.

The guidelines say that your business has to be adversely affected by coronavirus. I can think of a number of cases where the absence of some useless manager benefited the business, and such a person's absence due to coronavirus would not count. In your example employing someone else would be an additional cost, and therefore the business would have been affected by coronavirus. If your partner could and did do the job equally as well as you, and had the time to do it, and the business was unaffected as a result, then it doesn't come within the guidelines, but as I pointed out earlier, that is an extremely unlikely scenario.

You might like to read:
 "Bull.... Jobs: A Theory is a 2018 book by anthropologist David Graeber that argues the existence and societal harm of meaningless jobs. He contends that over half of societal work is pointless, which becomes psychologically destructive when paired with a work ethic that associates work with self-worth. Graeber describes five types of meaningless jobs, in which workers pretend their role is not as pointless or harmful as they know it to be: flunkies, goons, duct tapers, box tickers, and taskmasters. He argues that the association of labor with virtuous suffering is recent in human history, and proposes universal basic income as a potential solution."

Grumpy_chap

UBI is, of course, not a solution without it's own challenges and difficulties in implementation.

The legal bench-mark is to "the man on the Clapham Omnibus" not "the man on the street"

There is a difficulty here in that the average "person on the Clapham Omnibus" probably does not have the level of understanding of operating a small sole-trader self-employed business and all the nuances even to the level that has been discussed in this thread.  Quite possible that the "person on the Clapham Omnibus" just feels that all self-employed are tax dodgers, so there is some merit in the comment from @justwhat that the average "person on the Clapham Omnibus" does not have the knowledge to comment with appropriate perspective or " far too blinkered.(and he is prob a div)" as it was less-eloquently put.

The good thing is this thread has explored the issues, and the OP has come back to confirm they decided not to apply for the first SEISS grant, but may consider the second SEISS grant if the justification arises in the future.  It is great that the OP's business has not been adversely affected thus far, and long may it stay that way

justwhat

Jeremy535897 said:

"Being ill with coronavirus only counts if the business does worse without you"
That not what the guidelines say. In the above case you may employ someone else or get your partner too take up the slack. The fact you are off work means it has adversely effected you / and your business.

The guidelines say that your business has to be adversely affected by coronavirus. I can think of a number of cases where the absence of some useless manager benefited the business, and such a person's absence due to coronavirus would not count. In your example employing someone else would be an additional cost, and therefore the business would have been affected by coronavirus. If your partner could and did do the job equally as well as you, and had the time to do it, and the business was unaffected as a result, then it doesn't come within the guidelines, but as I pointed out earlier, that is an extremely unlikely scenario.

You might like to read:
 "Bull.... Jobs: A Theory is a 2018 book by anthropologist David Graeber that argues the existence and societal harm of meaningless jobs. He contends that over half of societal work is pointless, which becomes psychologically destructive when paired with a work ethic that associates work with self-worth. Graeber describes five types of meaningless jobs, in which workers pretend their role is not as pointless or harmful as they know it to be: flunkies, goons, duct tapers, box tickers, and taskmasters. He argues that the association of labor with virtuous suffering is recent in human history, and proposes universal basic income as a potential solution."

lol Again that's not what the guidelines say. It does not stipulate profit or how essential a worker is.  The useless box ticker is not ticking the box's during covid cause he is of sick.  then its adversely effected the business because he is not ticking the box's. And that what he is there to do. How essential a job or task is , again is not a criteria of seiss. 
Your assumption is the it should be claimed if you are adversely effected and its effected profit and your duties are essential to the buisness? (or have i got it wrong) Cause again its not what the guidelines say

Jeremy535897

All I would say is that the scenarios set out in the guidance do not suggest that being off sick with coronavirus automatically leads to the business being adversely affected. See:

"Scenario 4

A builder was able to work as normal from February 2020 to August 2020 because she works on small house extensions which are completely outdoors. However, she caught coronavirus in August 2020, meaning she was unable to work for 6 weeks while she recovered.

Adversely affected	Is the condition met?
First grant	No
Second grant	Yes

Reason

As the builder was able to work as normal and not adversely affected until after 14 July 2020 she is not eligible to claim the first grant. Her business was adversely affected by coronavirus in August 2020 when she was unable to work for 6 weeks so she is eligible to claim the second grant."

If simply being off sick with coronavirus sufficient, why not just say "she was unable to work for six weeks due to coronavirus"?

justwhat

Jeremy535897 said:

Reason

As the builder was able to work as normal and not adversely affected until after 14 July 2020 she is not eligible to claim the first grant. Her business was adversely affected by coronavirus in August 2020 when she was unable to work for 6 weeks so she is eligible to claim the second grant."

If simply being off sick with coronavirus sufficient, why not just say "she was unable to work for six weeks due to coronavirus"?

it does imply she is entitled to claim because she was of work for six weeks due to covid . It does not mention profit or earnings. 
If it means profit or earnings MUST be effected then it should say. That would then make this VERY clear who can and cannot claim. If they said that profits must be effected there is no ambiguity at all.
Each of the criteria is separate and may not necessarily be linked to each other.

Jeremy535897

justwhat said:

Jeremy535897 said:

Reason

As the builder was able to work as normal and not adversely affected until after 14 July 2020 she is not eligible to claim the first grant. Her business was adversely affected by coronavirus in August 2020 when she was unable to work for 6 weeks so she is eligible to claim the second grant."

If simply being off sick with coronavirus sufficient, why not just say "she was unable to work for six weeks due to coronavirus"?

it does imply she is entitled to claim because she was of work for six weeks due to covid . It does not mention profit or earnings. 
If it means profit or earnings MUST be effected then it should say. That would then make this VERY clear who can and cannot claim. If they said that profits must be effected there is no ambiguity at all.
Each of the criteria is separate and may not necessarily be linked to each other.

We will have to agree to differ.

unholyangel

justwhat said:

Jeremy535897 said:

 Being ill with coronavirus only counts if the business does worse without you (although one would hope it does, otherwise why are you bothering). It is true that there is no de minimis test, but if the only negative impact is extra costs due to PPE, and your sales have actually gone up, has your business really been adversely affected by coronavirus? You are back to the specific v aggregate test again, and I would say that if you are in business making PPE, and your profit massively increases, you can't claim the grant just because a worker was self isolating for 14 days, so your profits weren't as high as they might have been.

"Being ill with coronavirus only counts if the business does worse without you"
That not what the guidelines say. In the above case you may employ someone else or get your partner too take up the slack. The fact you are off work means it has adversely effected you / and your business. 
You may cancel the work and be able to catch up after the 14 days.
Every example in the guidelines does not mention adverse effect AND profit.(joe blogs in the street will always decide based on profit or financial  gain not adverse effect.)
Nowhere in the guideline does it say adversely effect and profit loss are the criteria / only criteria.
And there will be PPE suppliers that have used the furlough scheme. (customs clearance / logistics is shot to the uk at moment)

Put it this way, if your claim is queried, are you satisfied that you have the records to back up your claim and convince an officer of HMRC that your business was adversely affected? Because that's what it will come down to. Not them having to prove your business wasn't affected but you having to prove it was.