Revenue Checking Employers availing of Wage Subsidy Scheme

Dempo1

Assuming we are to believe how brisk business has been since lockdown ended it begs the question how businesses will be justifying a loss in revenues apart from the lockdown period (a separate issue) . I've spoken to few mates who tell me there's been little reduction in business since reopening and yet entire staff on wage subsidy, there down wages, working same hours and employers clawing pretty much entire payroll. I'm still on pup just to clarify objectivity, back on 1st August hopefully.

I suspect Revenue are going to have a field day with claw backs.

PaybackPayroll

Interesting to note that in the original guidance it stated an 'expectation of 25% reduction in turnover for Q2'. Not too unreasonable for many businesses considering the circumstances.

The new letter now says:

"Employers have suffered at least a 25% reduction in turnover as a result of the pandemic "

The Expectation part is missing. I suspect many employers are going to bitterly regret doing this scheme - through no fault of their own.

Dempo1

PaybackPayroll wrote: »

Interesting to note that in the original guidance it stated an 'expectation of 25% reduction in turnover for Q2'. Not too unreasonable for many businesses considering the circumstances.

The new letter now says:

"Employers have suffered at least a 25% reduction in turnover as a result of the pandemic "

The Expectation part is missing. I suspect many employers are going to bitterly regret doing this scheme - through no fault of their own.

I guess the arguments will commence as to when the 25% applies, obviously most businesses had 100% loss during lockdown but my reading of reporting is revenue seeking info on current trading. It seems illogical that say if a business is fully open and revenues are back to normal or say a small drop that any business could continue to claim 85% of its payroll.

Grants, loans etc for initial loss of business a separate issue. I wondered how may businesses would have actually reopened had the subsidy been removed, I agree, I think employers will soon be regretting this.

Stratvs

The turnover drop in Q2 remains the basis for all current and future employer engagement with the scheme. That has not changed.
Any business totally closed for most of Q2 such as retail, pubs, hairdressers etc. should have no problem meeting that. The difficulty may be those who were able to continue trading in Q2 even if it was on a reduced operating basis, would they have had a 25% fall in business. This is what the Revenue press release of 23/06 said :-

https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/press-office/press-releases/2020/pr-230620-revenue-provide-important-information-on-extension-of-twss.aspx

I've had several cases where the employer met the criteria but since reopening have disengaged from the scheme as they feel that they are able to manage now and were thankful for what they got between the subsidy, the rates grant etc. I have others who also met the criteria but are still engaging with the scheme as business is still impacted, there are bills back to March still to be paid or they might have difficulty getting supplies and they need that extra support for a few more weeks. No doubt there will be some cases out there that should never have engaged in the scheme and I'd expect Revenue to follow through and recoup what is fairly due.

Dempo1

Stratvs wrote: »

The turnover drop in Q2 remains the basis for all current and future employer engagement with the scheme. That has not changed.
Any business totally closed for most of Q2 such as retail, pubs, hairdressers etc. should have no problem meeting that. The difficulty may be those who were able to continue trading in Q2 even if it was on a reduced operating basis, would they have had a 25% fall in business. This is what the Revenue press release of 23/06 said :-

https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/press-office/press-releases/2020/pr-230620-revenue-provide-important-information-on-extension-of-twss.aspx

I've had several cases where the employer met the criteria but since reopening have disengaged from the scheme as they feel that they are able to manage now and were thankful for what they got between the subsidy, the rates grant etc. I have others who also met the criteria but are still engaging with the scheme as business is still impacted, there are bills back to March still to be paid or they might have difficulty getting supplies and they need that extra support for a few more weeks. No doubt there will be some cases out there that should never have engaged in the scheme and I'd expect Revenue to follow through and recoup what is fairly due.

That really clarifies alot, thanks.

I'd be very curious if Revenue will be understanding about bills due during closure. I'm guessing Rent will be the main issue. Utilities doubtful as consumption drastically reduced. Rates of course will be interesting but I suspect there will be some grants, leeway separately.

Stratvs

Dempo1 wrote: »

That really clarifies alot, thanks.

I'd be very curious if Revenue will be understanding about bills due during closure. I'm guessing Rent will be the main issue. Utilities doubtful as consumption drastically reduced. Rates of course will be interesting but I suspect there will be some grants, leeway separately.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/communications/documents/guidance-on-employer-eligibility-and-supporting-proofs.pdf

The supporting proofs p3 gives more guidance on engagement with the scheme.

Also, just because a business had less costs in the period e.g. through reduced utilities or rent freeze or rates grant received during Q2 doesn't mean they shouldn't have engaged with the scheme. There may also have been some business cash reserves and they wouldn't expect those to be used just to keep bills paid as they might be needed for reopening. Many businesses might have had to pay their March/April suppliers now now and they'd need some reserves to do that.

Most businesses I hope will have operated the scheme fairly, as in fairly to themselves, their employees and the exchequer.