HMRC issues reminder about early December pay dates
Many businesses pay their employees early in December. However, for employees who also claim Universal Credit, this can cause a problem. HMRC has explained how to avoid it. What should you do?
In its latest employer bulletin, HMRC issued a reminder to employers that pay their employees earlier than usual in December. Employees who are in receipt of Universal Credit can be adversely affected if the correct reporting procedure is not followed, as the system for reporting income may include two payments for a single assessment period. As Universal Credit entitlement is assessed on an ongoing basis, this can reduce or even remove their entitlement altogether, causing hardship. Additionally, the reporting of zero earnings in the subsequent assessment period can mean that entitlement to the work allowance is lost in that period.
HMRC says that in order to avoid the issue, the employer should always use the regular contractual pay date in the full payment submission (FPS) - even if the pay date is earlier or later than usual. So, for December a business that usually pays employees on the last working day of the month should use 31 December on the FPS. Doing this will ensure the problem of double counting is avoided.
Related Topics
-
Mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind delayed
The government has revised plans to introduce the mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind from 6 April 2027, which will now be limited to company cars, vans, fuel and medical benefits. What's the full story?
-
Personal vs company donation to charity
You’re an owner manager and want to make a £5,000 donation to a local charity. You’ve claimed income tax relief under the gift aid scheme for smaller amounts but could it be more tax efficient to make the donation via the company?
-
Uber loses VAT margin scheme appeal
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Uber cannot use the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS) when accounting for VAT on its ride-hailing services. The decision could have significant implications for businesses that act as intermediaries when supplying services to consumers. What was the dispute about?