SEISS 5th Grant - Query on turnover

JosephBrown

So, I believe (from a govt paper i read) that it will be based on the reduction seen in 2019-2020. Makes sense in theory I guess - the more effected someone been during the main pandemic year, it stands a chance the more effected they’ll be in may-september this year so deserve a bigger grant.

What i don’t understand is:
A) A reduction in 20-21 vs what? 19-20 or the average of three years previous to 20-21?
if the grant is paid in July, then while I submit my tax returns early many people don’t and the 20-21 tax return isn’t due until january 2022, 6 months after the grant is paid. So how can they know in July how much you were effected in 20-21 to decide whether to give 0, 30 or 80%?

justwhat said:

Blooo said:

Reading from HMRC's site on the 5th SESISS Grant it states:

The amount of the fifth grant will be determined by how much your turnover has been reduced in the year April 2020 to April 2021.

The fifth grant will be worth:

• 80% of 3 months’ average trading profits, capped at £7,500, for those with a turnover reduction of 30% or more

• 30% of 3 months’ average trading profits, capped at £2,850, for those with a turnover reduction of less than 30%

I note it's now based on how much your turnover has been reduced. My turnover without Grants 1, 2, 3 & 4 would be a reduction of roughly 60%. However if the turnover reduction is 'including' the grants I have already claimed then the turnover is about the same .

Any ideas?

So .......lol 20/21 tax return is not legally due in.  Does that mean its a geustimate?
And turnover reduced in comparison to last year or the average of 3 years? 

Jeremy535897

You have already had to guess what your trading profits are likely to be for your current trading year when you claimed SEISS 3. My expectation is that the reduction in turnover will not be based on a comparison with any previous years, but rather a comparison with what you would have expected your turnover to be without coronavirus in the current year. However, we don't have the details yet.

JosephBrown

That’s a fair point @Jeremy535897

They seem to like creating these grey areas in the middle by basing it on our “expectations”.
I suppose the easiest way of knowing what you’d of expected would be by comparing to the year previous anyway, so sounds easy enough.

Jeremy535897

JosephBrown said:

That’s a fair point @Jeremy535897

They seem to like creating these grey areas in the middle by basing it on our “expectations”.
I suppose the easiest way of knowing what you’d of expected would be by comparing to the year previous anyway, so sounds easy enough.

I think you should also explain why you think last year is as accurate an estimate of turnover as you could have expected, or whether there are any one-offs (either last year or this year) that would indicate a different figure. Again, though, this is just speculation until more details are published.

Risteard

It's a complete phallacy and a sham that they are basing it on reduction of turnover rather than reduction in profit. In order to survive many have taken on less profitable works with higher materials costs as other work dried up - this increases turnover but greatly reduces profit. For shame. Criminals. Sunak is despicable.

MalMonroe

Risteard said:

It's a complete phallacy and a sham that they are basing it on reduction of turnover rather than reduction in profit. In order to survive many have taken on less profitable works with higher materials costs as other work dried up - this increases turnover but greatly reduces profit. For shame. Criminals. Sunak is despicable.

Sorry but it's 'fallacy'. The word you have used has an entirely different meaning altogether. 

This is an old thread anyway and the more up to date information is here :

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/self-employment-income-support-scheme-grant-extension/self-employment-income-support-scheme-grant-extension

Batesy1976

MalMonroe said:

Risteard said:

It's a complete phallacy and a sham that they are basing it on reduction of turnover rather than reduction in profit. In order to survive many have taken on less profitable works with higher materials costs as other work dried up - this increases turnover but greatly reduces profit. For shame. Criminals. Sunak is despicable.

Sorry but it's 'fallacy'. The word you have used has an entirely different meaning altogether. 

This is an old thread anyway and the more up to date information is here :

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/self-employment-income-support-scheme-grant-extension/self-employment-income-support-scheme-grant-extension

Not really more up to date. That page is dated March 3rd.

Pennywise

Risteard said:

It's a complete phallacy and a sham that they are basing it on reduction of turnover rather than reduction in profit. In order to survive many have taken on less profitable works with higher materials costs as other work dried up - this increases turnover but greatly reduces profit. For shame. Criminals. Sunak is despicable.

Whilst I agree, it's no worse than all the other nonsensical decisions made by Rishi as regards the self employed, hence the 3 million excluded!  He really hates small business and freelancers.

Risteard

MalMonroe said:

Risteard said:

It's a complete phallacy and a sham that they are basing it on reduction of turnover rather than reduction in profit. In order to survive many have taken on less profitable works with higher materials costs as other work dried up - this increases turnover but greatly reduces profit. For shame. Criminals. Sunak is despicable.

Sorry but it's 'fallacy'. The word you have used has an entirely different meaning altogether. 

This is an old thread anyway and the more up to date information is here :

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/self-employment-income-support-scheme-grant-extension/self-employment-income-support-scheme-grant-extension

Yes indeed, but phallic comparisons are apt where it comes to the morally reprehensible Sunak.