Seiss grant 4 incorrect

Haylz01

Hi

I am wondering if anyone can help or shhed any light on how to take this further or if they know of anyone in a similar situation?

My husband was not eliable for the first 3 grants because for the first 3 years of trading he earnt more than 50% of total earnings from another income.

He went solely self employed in 2019 and now became eliagble the 4th grant as he had submitted his 19/20 tax return.

However from calculating his amount they have now decided to include the previous years to bring the average down to an absolute minimum!

How can they justify this when they didn't allow him to include the previous tax years before to claim for anything...

Hopefully I have explained this right but we belive that what they are doing is inhumane and it a glitch that needs to be rectified!? 

unholyangel

It's not a glitch or incorrect. The 50% rule is in relation to eligibility. How the grant is calculated is separate. 

macman

I suspect that your husband did not trade for the full tax year 19/20, as they would only go back to the previous years if he failed to meet the profits condition for the most recent year?

unholyangel

macman said:

I suspect that your husband did not trade for the full tax year 19/20, as they would only go back to the previous years if he failed to meet the profits condition for the most recent year?

They only do that when checking you're eligible. Check 19/20 if not eligible on 19/20 alone then check all years they traded.


Once they are eligible, it then moves on to calculating the grant - which is trading profit from all relevant years and not just 19/20. 

It's the calculation OP is querying, not the eligibility. 

Jeremy535897

macman said:

I suspect that your husband did not trade for the full tax year 19/20, as they would only go back to the previous years if he failed to meet the profits condition for the most recent year?

No, that is not the issue (which was explained with admirable brevity in the post by unholyangel). The complaint is a familiar one. If the three years 2016/17 to 2018/19 showed profits less than other taxable income, and so did 2018/19 on its own, you were ineligible for SEISS 1 to 3. If, however, 2019/20's profits were at least equal to other taxable income, you potentially are eligible for SEISS 4 and 5 (if you meet all the other conditions). However, the calculation of that grant is based on average profits for 2016/17 to 2019/20, not 2019/20 alone.

unholyangel

Jeremy535897 said:

macman said:

I suspect that your husband did not trade for the full tax year 19/20, as they would only go back to the previous years if he failed to meet the profits condition for the most recent year?

No, that is not the issue (which was explained with admirable brevity in the post by unholyangel). The complaint is a familiar one. If the three years 2016/17 to 2018/19 showed profits less than other taxable income, and so did 2018/19 on its own, you were ineligible for SEISS 1 to 3. If, however, 2019/20's profits were at least equal to other taxable income, you potentially are eligible for SEISS 4 and 5 (if you meet all the other conditions). However, the calculation of that grant is based on average profits for 2016/17 to 2019/20, not 2019/20 alone.

It was so unlike me too! Normally you get half a book in response. 

Haylz01

Jeremy535897 said:

macman said:

I suspect that your husband did not trade for the full tax year 19/20, as they would only go back to the previous years if he failed to meet the profits condition for the most recent year?

No, that is not the issue (which was explained with admirable brevity in the post by unholyangel). The complaint is a familiar one. If the three years 2016/17 to 2018/19 showed profits less than other taxable income, and so did 2018/19 on its own, you were ineligible for SEISS 1 to 3. If, however, 2019/20's profits were at least equal to other taxable income, you potentially are eligible for SEISS 4 and 5 (if you meet all the other conditions). However, the calculation of that grant is based on average profits for 2016/17 to 2019/20, not 2019/20 alone.

This is exactly what has happened. But what my query is I don't see how they can justify this when they wouldn't let us use 16/17,17/18 and 18/19 to claim a grant in the first place. But they are now using these to their advantage to calculate an average which pays us much less! My view is he should be treated the same way as a newly self employed, because if they excluded those years when checking for eligibility, they should also exclude them when averaging out when he has already missed out on 3 grants completely.

This is a very new query as will have only come up since the 4th grant is being processed, I just wonder how many others have been penilised for this. 

zzyzx1221

Haylz01 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

macman said:

I suspect that your husband did not trade for the full tax year 19/20, as they would only go back to the previous years if he failed to meet the profits condition for the most recent year?

No, that is not the issue (which was explained with admirable brevity in the post by unholyangel). The complaint is a familiar one. If the three years 2016/17 to 2018/19 showed profits less than other taxable income, and so did 2018/19 on its own, you were ineligible for SEISS 1 to 3. If, however, 2019/20's profits were at least equal to other taxable income, you potentially are eligible for SEISS 4 and 5 (if you meet all the other conditions). However, the calculation of that grant is based on average profits for 2016/17 to 2019/20, not 2019/20 alone.

This is exactly what has happened. But what my query is I don't see how they can justify this when they wouldn't let us use 16/17,17/18 and 18/19 to claim a grant in the first place. But they are now using these to their advantage to calculate an average which pays us much less! My view is he should be treated the same way as a newly self employed, because if they excluded those years when checking for eligibility, they should also exclude them when averaging out when he has already missed out on 3 grants completely.

This is a very new query as will have only come up since the 4th grant is being processed, I just wonder how many others have been penilised for this. 

They can justify it because those are the rules that the Government has set.  You may not like it, you may not feel it fair but it is what it is.

Jeremy535897

It's not new, because people who qualified for SEISS 1 to 3 based on 2018/19 profits, but would not have done based on 2016/17 to 2018/19 profits, made precisely the same argument. They were absolutely determined that the calculation of their grant should be based on 2018/19 profits only, rather than 2016/17 to 2018/19 profits, and got nowhere.

MattMattMattUK

Haylz01 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

macman said:

I suspect that your husband did not trade for the full tax year 19/20, as they would only go back to the previous years if he failed to meet the profits condition for the most recent year?

No, that is not the issue (which was explained with admirable brevity in the post by unholyangel). The complaint is a familiar one. If the three years 2016/17 to 2018/19 showed profits less than other taxable income, and so did 2018/19 on its own, you were ineligible for SEISS 1 to 3. If, however, 2019/20's profits were at least equal to other taxable income, you potentially are eligible for SEISS 4 and 5 (if you meet all the other conditions). However, the calculation of that grant is based on average profits for 2016/17 to 2019/20, not 2019/20 alone.

This is exactly what has happened. But what my query is I don't see how they can justify this when they wouldn't let us use 16/17,17/18 and 18/19 to claim a grant in the first place. But they are now using these to their advantage to calculate an average which pays us much less! My view is he should be treated the same way as a newly self employed, because if they excluded those years when checking for eligibility, they should also exclude them when averaging out when he has already missed out on 3 grants completely.

This is a very new query as will have only come up since the 4th grant is being processed, I just wonder how many others have been penilised for this. 

They are applying the legislation passed by parliament, as they are required to. I am not sure I would regard it as being penalised, your husband is getting a grant, it is just not as generous as you would like it to be. 

Haylz01

I welcome to hear news of anyone else in a similar scenario to us, and hope that you will appeal it heavily, which is what we will be doing.