Furlough scheme: has employers’ NI been overclaimed?
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) has issued new guidance that describes two scenarios where employers using the furlough scheme may have inadvertently reclaimed secondary Class 1 NI twice when the scheme was first introduced. What’s the full story?
The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) is complex, but broadly employers pay a percentage of an employee's regular salary (at least 80% in 2020), subject to a cap, then reclaim the 80% element from HMRC. However, it also allows secondary Class 2 NI contributions to be reclaimed, as well as pension contributions under auto-enrolment. This has led to some scenarios where employers who claim the employment allowance (EA) of up to £4,000 per year inadvertently receiving furlough payments in respect of NI that is also relieved under the EA. The ICAEW has published detailed commentary on where this may have happened. In brief, an overclaim may occur where:
- EA claims were deferred until after the final claim month for the CJRS where the £4,000 was not absorbed in full during 2020/21; or
- EA claims were made at the beginning of the tax year where the full £4,000 was absorbed before July 2020.
Potentially affected business should carefully read the guidance and contact HMRC’s Employer Helpline on 0300 200 3200 if they think there is an issue.
Related Topics
-
Selling spare items to your company
You’re short of cash but if you use the traditional methods to take more money out of your company you’ll pay higher rate taxes. Is there another way to extract profits without paying income tax or NI?
-
No such thing as a (tax) free lunch?
You run a small consultancy company and treat your staff to lunch in the office once a week. Your bookkeeper says it’s a taxable benefit in kind because staff lunches are only exempt if they are provided in a workplace canteen. Is this correct?
-
Judge criticises use of fabricated AI-generated cases in HMRC appeal
A tax tribunal judge has criticised the use of apparently fabricated case references generated by artificial intelligence in an appeal against HMRC. The incident highlights growing concerns over the use of AI tools in legal and tax proceedings. What happened?