Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Wage Subsidy Scheme Issues

1131416181937

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭eh i dunno


    Hey hope someone can help!
    If you are on the wage subsidy scheme getting the 70% from the goverment only - Can the employer force you to move from working part time to full time without topping up your wage?

    Yes unfortunately once they can prove business is down by at least 25%


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    Thanks for looking at it for me - i just couldn't get my head around it.

    So basically, come the end of the year when revenue starts taxing the wage subsidy payment, i'm going to owe a fairly high amount (350 x 20% or 40%)
    Same as everyone else in here, only they've gotten the rebates now to cover it whereas i am going to be well out of pocket :(

    I haven't looked at your numbers, but my understanding is that any excess tax owed at year end will be taken by adjusting your credits downwards for the next year, or possibly 2 years. In other words it's unlikely you'll have to file a return and pay the tax owing in one payment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 austenesque


    eh i dunno wrote: »
    Yes unfortunately once they can prove business is down by at least 25%

    Really!! I thought the idea of theWSS was to keep people on the payroll with the employee either not working or working reduced hours until business improved. As business starts to return back to normal and companies need staff to return to working full time my understanding was that full wages should be reinstated?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭eh i dunno


    Really!! I thought the idea of theWSS was to keep people on the payroll with the employee either not working or working reduced hours until business improved. As business starts to return back to normal and companies need staff to return to working full time my understanding was that full wages should be reinstated?

    No unfortunately not and employers can abuse it as much as they want


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,558 ✭✭✭Tow


    Really!! I thought the idea of theWSS was to keep people on the payroll with the employee either not working or working reduced hours until business improved. As business starts to return back to normal and companies need staff to return to working full time my understanding was that full wages should be reinstated?

    You are correct. It's other purpose was to reduce number of PUP payments DEASP had to handle.

    However, their are many employers thinking it is free money/labor from the state. They are now trying to pay employees and hitting off the employee's Maximum Employer Pay (Top up) limit. Then you have the chancers who are using the employee's own tax refunds to pay the employee etc...

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    Tow wrote: »
    You are correct. It's other purpose was to reduce number of PUP payments DEASP had to handle.

    However, their are many employers thinking it is free money/labor from the state. They are now trying to pay employees and hitting off the employee's Maximum Employer Pay (Top up) limit. Then you have the chancers who are using the employee's own tax refunds to pay the employee etc...

    Unfortunately this is happening. Our wages are being messed around with a lot and not getting answers when we question things.

    we are getting tax refunds but our basic pay is down but because the nett is much the same they just say we're getting paid the same as always .

    Have argued this every week and at this stage I'm so sick of it that if I could get Revenue on the phone I would start asking questions


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 austenesque


    SAMTALK wrote: »
    Unfortunately this is happening. Our wages are being messed around with a lot and not getting answers when we question things.

    we are getting tax refunds but our basic pay is down but because the nett is much the same they just say we're getting paid the same as always .

    Have argued this every week and at this stage I'm so sick of it that if I could get Revenue on the phone I would start asking questions



    Yes definatly a lot of messing around with wages. The other issue is the 70% from gov is not net pay as this will be taxed at a later date. So if an employer for example tops up your net pay to 100% by paying out 30% themselves you are not actually recieving 100% net take home pay. So even if the employer tops up wages the employee is still at a loss. Is this correct?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭kennethsmyth


    Yes definatly a lot of messing around with wages. The other issue is the 70% from gov is not net pay as this will be taxed at a later date. So if an employer for example tops up your net pay to 100% by paying out 30% themselves you are not actually recieving 100% net take home pay. So even if the employer tops up wages the employee is still at a loss. Is this correct?

    Nope, you are 100% correct in your statement above unless revenue decide at a later date that the covid twss payment will not be taxed. - I can't see this happening so instead the employees take the hit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Pistachio19


    Yes definatly a lot of messing around with wages. The other issue is the 70% from gov is not net pay as this will be taxed at a later date. So if an employer for example tops up your net pay to 100% by paying out 30% themselves you are not actually recieving 100% net take home pay. So even if the employer tops up wages the employee is still at a loss. Is this correct?

    You'll possibly end up paying tax at a later stage. One of our employees is getting tax back which brings him over his average net salary for Jan/Feb. The other is getting a bit less than his usual net salary even though he's getting a few quid tax back. That all depends on a persons personal tax credit. One is married so probably sharing credits, one is not. We are not in a position while availing of the TWSS to pay him his full usual monthly amount. That would mean revenue would decrease their subsidy for him. While some people may think their employers are messing them around, chances are they are abiding by the rules and actually are using the correct figures. Both our employers are back working but it will take another couple of months before turnover picks up so we will continue to use the subsidy. I'd hate to think either of them thought we were messing them about


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭kennethsmyth


    You'll possibly end up paying tax at a later stage. One of our employees is getting tax back which brings him over his average net salary for Jan/Feb. The other is getting a bit less than his usual net salary even though he's getting a few quid tax back. That all depends on a persons personal tax credit. One is married so probably sharing credits, one is not. We are not in a position while availing of the TWSS to pay him his full usual monthly amount. That would mean revenue would decrease their subsidy for him. While some people may think their employers are messing them around, chances are they are abiding by the rules and actually are using the correct figures. Both our employers are back working but it will take another couple of months before turnover picks up so we will continue to use the subsidy. I'd hate to think either of them thought we were messing them about


    Understand employers are going through difficult times however the twss is between employer and revenue, the salary is between employer and employee.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭the corpo


    Does anyone know if it's possible to actually phone Revenue regarding the scheme? Can't find a number


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,558 ✭✭✭Tow


    Understand employers are going through difficult times however the twss is between employer and revenue, the salary is between employer and employee.

    This is were the real fun starts. The employer is legally obliged to pay employee's contracted rate, unless an agreement is made before hand.

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5 austenesque


    Tow wrote: »
    This is were the real fun starts. The employer is legally obliged to pay employee's contracted rate, unless an agreement is made before hand.

    Yes this is my reasoning on it. Therefore it seems wrong that an employer can expect you to return working full time without reinstating contracted wages and employment conditions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    Tow wrote: »
    This is were the real fun starts. The employer is legally obliged to pay employee's contracted rate, unless an agreement is made before hand.


    This is my argument with them. We werent told that we were being put on scheme in the 1st place. Just received pay slip and nothing said

    Then in May our basic was reduced so they could avail of payment increase .

    Total messing going on and as we were not on reduced wage at any stage I have said we should still have same basic pay as this was the agreement between them and me


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭Lollipop95


    Has anyone had any issues with the Covid payment scheme? I applied 3 weeks ago online and still haven’t received anything..


  • Registered Users Posts: 254 ✭✭collsoft


    Hi TOW,

    You have actually hit the nail on the head.

    The only change to employment law for COVID was a change to prevent an employee from triggering automatic redundancy if they were laid off by their employer for 13 weeks or more

    All other employment law remains in force, and the WRC are the only relevant authority (apart from the courts perhaps) - not Revenue.

    Our support helpdesk has started to see a lot of queries coming in on this particular issue as employees are pushing back against working full time and being paid the subsidy.

    We have seen legal advice to both employees and employers which suggest that an employer who has put an employee on the wage subsidy scheme without prior agreement is likely to be in breech of the employment contract.

    Furthermore, we have seen employees who are saying that they are actually being paid below the minimum wage because they are in receipt of the subsidy.

    Employees are really coming under pressure if they are trying to get a mortgage or loan because all the bank are looking at is the reduced gross pay.


    On the flip side, if the government told you to shut up your business for 3 months then it is obviously going to take some time for them to recover after re-opening, and you should expect some kind of period where the employees will need to work full time until the companies turnover recovers.

    This is all going to get very interesting.
    Tow wrote: »
    This is were the real fun starts. The employer is legally obliged to pay employee's contracted rate, unless an agreement is made before hand.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Pistachio19


    Lollipop95 wrote: »
    Has anyone had any issues with the Covid payment scheme? I applied 3 weeks ago online and still haven’t received anything..

    Did you apply via Enquiries on ROS? Ours was approved straight away. Have a look at your ROS enquiries to see if they replied at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Renjit


    SAMTALK wrote: »
    This is my argument with them. We werent told that we were being put on scheme in the 1st place. Just received pay slip and nothing said

    Then in May our basic was reduced so they could avail of payment increase .

    Total messing going on and as we were not on reduced wage at any stage I have said we should still have same basic pay as this was the agreement between them and me

    So why not work reduced hours as per the new net weekly pay?


  • Registered Users Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Renjit


    collsoft wrote: »

    Employees are really coming under pressure if they are trying to get a mortgage or loan because all the bank are looking at is the reduced gross pay.

    That's pretty much the case here. The bank is revising the mortgage amount now because of less than actual net weekly pay.

    The employer is asking to work full time while paying less. Not sure about the legality here. The payslip doesn't mention the number of hours worked.


  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭gb19815


    Hi I’m back at work , my employer again availed of subsidy scheme due to business been down . My basic pay is €650, this week he used wage subsidy while I’m working full time . My basic pay was only €600 paying no tax , he used 350 subsidy and topped up by 250 . Am I right in saying it should be topped up to basic €650 regardless of whatever deductions I’m paying ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭eh i dunno


    gb19815 wrote: »
    Hi I’m back at work , my employer again availed of subsidy scheme due to business been down . My basic pay is €650, this week he used wage subsidy while I’m working full time . My basic pay was only €600 paying no tax , he used 350 subsidy and topped up by 250 . Am I right in saying it should be topped up to basic €650 regardless of whatever deductions I’m paying ?


    No its up to the employer how much if anything he tops you up by?


  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭gb19815


    eh i dunno wrote: »
    No its up to the employer how much if anything he tops you up by?

    Hi thanks for reply , even though we are working full time ? For a better word my employer is a greedy c unt


  • Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭je551e


    Employees should be working reduced hours while on the scheme or some agreement made to pay the employee back the hours.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭eh i dunno


    gb19815 wrote: »
    Hi thanks for reply , even though we are working full time ? For a better word my employer is a greedy c unt

    In the same boat myself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,558 ✭✭✭Tow


    gb19815 wrote: »
    Am I right in saying it should be topped up to basic €650 regardless of whatever deductions I’m paying ?

    If your ARNWP is 650 (and you only have one employment) the max the employer could top you up by is €300. 350 + 300 = 650. But even if they did this you still have tax to pay on the subsidy next year.

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    Renjit wrote: »
    So why not work reduced hours as per the new net weekly pay?

    Not given an option. They seem to think that because Nett pay is the same as our usual we are not out of pocket, despite the fact we are not paying tax on basic or covid


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭kennethsmyth


    collsoft wrote: »
    Hi TOW,

    You have actually hit the nail on the head.

    The only change to employment law for COVID was a change to prevent an employee from triggering automatic redundancy if they were laid off by their employer for 13 weeks or more

    All other employment law remains in force, and the WRC are the only relevant authority (apart from the courts perhaps) - not Revenue.

    Our support helpdesk has started to see a lot of queries coming in on this particular issue as employees are pushing back against working full time and being paid the subsidy.

    We have seen legal advice to both employees and employers which suggest that an employer who has put an employee on the wage subsidy scheme without prior agreement is likely to be in breech of the employment contract.

    Furthermore, we have seen employees who are saying that they are actually being paid below the minimum wage because they are in receipt of the subsidy.

    Employees are really coming under pressure if they are trying to get a mortgage or loan because all the bank are looking at is the reduced gross pay.


    On the flip side, if the government told you to shut up your business for 3 months then it is obviously going to take some time for them to recover after re-opening, and you should expect some kind of period where the employees will need to work full time until the companies turnover recovers.

    This is all going to get very interesting.

    I thought the timeline was 4 weeks the employee could initiate redundancy from employer and then the employer has to show that they can provide full work for next 13 weeks to allow them to refuse redundancy?


  • Registered Users Posts: 338 ✭✭Tomrota


    I’m a student who worked 5-12 hours per week during college. I’ve been brought back working today and I’m working full time 42 hours. I’ve been told by a colleague that our employer is using the subsidy scheme. What will my wage be does anyone know?

    It cannot possibly be 85% of my average weekly wage in January/February, that’s absurd? That would be 2,76€ per hour.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Lundstram


    Tomrota wrote: »
    I’m a student who worked 5-12 hours per week during college. I’ve been brought back working today and I’m working full time 42 hours. I’ve been told by a colleague that our employer is using the subsidy scheme. What will my wage be does anyone know?

    It cannot possibly be 85% of my average weekly wage in January/February, that’s absurd? That would be 2,76€ per hour.
    Hour rate x 42 x .85 = your wage


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭SCOOP 64


    Tomrota wrote: »
    I’m a student who worked 5-12 hours per week during college. I’ve been brought back working today and I’m working full time 42 hours. I’ve been told by a colleague that our employer is using the subsidy scheme. What will my wage be does anyone know?

    It cannot possibly be 85% of my average weekly wage in January/February, that’s absurd? That would be 2,76€ per hour.


    Wouldn't it be 42 x your hourly rate then 85% of this?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,558 ✭✭✭Tow


    Tomrota wrote: »
    It cannot possibly be 85% of my average weekly wage in January/February, that’s absurd? That would be 2,76€ per hour.

    There are no change in the minimum wage laws for Covid19. You employer might try to pay you using the Subsidy and hit off (or if incompetent exceed) your MWWS (Max Weekly Wage Subsidy) value, which is supplied by Revenue to they or they can choose to pay you normally.

    Employers can pick and choose who and when they pay the Subsidy.

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Registered Users Posts: 254 ✭✭collsoft


    You are indeed correct Kennthsmyth - I deal more in the payment of wages than the finer points of employment law!!!!

    Under the normal rules if you are laid off or put on short-time hours, you can claim redundancy from your employer after 4 weeks or more, or 6 weeks in the last 13 weeks.

    The broad point I was trying to make was that it was the only piece of employment law that had been changed as a result of COVID.

    All other contractual arrangements between an employer and their employees remain as was, and employers may find it difficult to defend cases where it is demonstrated that they have not remunerated their employees as per their employment contracts.

    The WRC have been making noises that they are the competent authority in this regard - not Revenue.

    For any employers recommencing after shutdown it would be very advisable that they consult with their employees before putting them on the subsidy as they could be leaving themselves open to action at a later date.

    Employers may very well be in a very tight situation with regard to turnover, but the employee can argue that is the employers problem and should not impact their employment contract if the employee is required to work full time.

    Employers may in some cases be better advised to agree some form of deferral of pay, or putting them on part time hours, or lay some staff off and put them on social welfare, or even look at redundancies.

    But putting an employee back to work on the wage subsidy scheme without prior consultation and expecting them to work full time hurs may prove problematic in the longer term.
    I thought the timeline was 4 weeks the employee could initiate redundancy from employer and then the employer has to show that they can provide full work for next 13 weeks to allow them to refuse redundancy?


  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭gb19815


    collsoft wrote: »
    You are indeed correct Kennthsmyth - I deal more in the payment of wages than the finer points of employment law!!!!

    Under the normal rules if you are laid off or put on short-time hours, you can claim redundancy from your employer after 4 weeks or more, or 6 weeks in the last 13 weeks.

    The broad point I was trying to make was that it was the only piece of employment law that had been changed as a result of COVID.

    All other contractual arrangements between an employer and their employees remain as was, and employers may find it difficult to defend cases where it is demonstrated that they have not remunerated their employees as per their employment contracts.

    The WRC have been making noises that they are the competent authority in this regard - not Revenue.

    For any employers recommencing after shutdown it would be very advisable that they consult with their employees before putting them on the subsidy as they could be leaving themselves open to action at a later date.

    Employers may very well be in a very tight situation with regard to turnover, but the employee can argue that is the employers problem and should not impact their employment contract if the employee is required to work full time.

    Employers may in some cases be better advised to agree some form of deferral of pay, or putting them on part time hours, or lay some staff off and put them on social welfare, or even look at redundancies.

    But putting an employee back to work on the wage subsidy scheme without prior consultation and expecting them to work full time hurs may prove problematic in the longer term.

    Hi in what way could it be problematic? I normally work 4 hours extra per week which continue to do so. Is it right they can top subsidy up what they like ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 Randomuser26


    Im in the same boat too. And on top of that our employer has made us take a massive pay cut. Result is employer is paying us half nothing..........far less than minimum wage and we are working full-time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 Randomuser26


    eh i dunno wrote: »
    In the same boat myself.
    Im in the same boat too. And on top of that our employer has made us take a massive pay cut. Result is employer is paying us half nothing..........far less than minimum wage and we are working full-time.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Pistachio19


    Im in the same boat too. And on top of that our employer has made us take a massive pay cut. Result is employer is paying us half nothing..........far less than minimum wage and we are working full-time.

    Is your employer not topping you up to your average weekly wage?


  • Registered Users Posts: 265 ✭✭Will23


    Someone in work mentioned that the revenue made some comment recently on how they might treat the taxation of the covid payments at years end. Anyone hear what was said?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,792 ✭✭✭2Mad2BeMad


    Will23 wrote: »
    Someone in work mentioned that the revenue made some comment recently on how they might treat the taxation of the covid payments at years end. Anyone hear what was said?

    What im hearing is that the repayment you make will be spaced out over a year or 2.
    Basically they just take it from your credits.


  • Registered Users Posts: 265 ✭✭Will23


    2Mad2BeMad wrote: »
    What im hearing is that the repayment you make will be spaced out over a year or 2.
    Basically they just take it from your credits.

    Yeah, that’s what I had heard. Was given to believe there might be mention a write off but didn’t think that would be the case.

    I don’t think the penny has dropped with many folks, particularly those who might fall into the higher bracket, how high the tax bill will be next Jan! Spreading it out over 2 years will help with pay back but it’s still another bill to be paid!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭eh i dunno


    Will23 wrote: »
    Yeah, that’s what I had heard. Was given to believe there might be mention a write off but didn’t think that would be the case.

    I don’t think the penny has dropped with many folks, particularly those who might fall into the higher bracket, how high the tax bill will be next Jan! Spreading it out over 2 years will help with pay back but it’s still another bill to be paid!

    And employers aren't really mentioning it to staff either.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4 Randomuser26


    Is your employer not topping you up to your average weekly wage?
    Employer is topping us up......kind of. They have implemented a massive pay cut so the amount of money they are contributing to our wages is only a couple of hundred Euro a week!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    Wonder how many companies who can afford it will take a leaf out of IKEA,s book. Doubt if it will be too many

    I know the figures here are been jiggled to claim the payment and it's the workers who will suffer in the long run


  • Registered Users Posts: 254 ✭✭collsoft


    Well the current line still is that the subsidy is subject to PAYE and USC at the end of the year and as other have commented this will be clawed back by reducing your credits going forward for a year or two.

    One interesting recent development is that Revenue are in the process of putting all employees who have been on the scheme onto a week 1 basis.

    As far as I understand they are also doing this for employees who are returning to work after being on the PUP payment.

    Until recently the Revenue line was "Issue Tax refunds" but I think that perhaps they now realize it might be better to stop refunding tax and building up a bigger problem at year end.
    Will23 wrote: »
    Someone in work mentioned that the revenue made some comment recently on how they might treat the taxation of the covid payments at years end. Anyone hear what was said?


  • Registered Users Posts: 265 ✭✭Will23


    collsoft wrote: »
    Well the current line still is that the subsidy is subject to PAYE and USC at the end of the year and as other have commented this will be clawed back by reducing your credits going forward for a year or two.

    One interesting recent development is that Revenue are in the process of putting all employees who have been on the scheme onto a week 1 basis.

    As far as I understand they are also doing this for employees who are returning to work after being on the PUP payment.

    Until recently the Revenue line was "Issue Tax refunds" but I think that perhaps they now realize it might be better to stop refunding tax and building up a bigger problem at year end.

    Thanks Jason, very useful to know, what does ‘week 1’ mean in layman’s terms?

    Will


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 333 ✭✭head82


    Struggling to find a definite answer to this one.

    Since been put on the WSS from mid March.. still working normal hours and topped up by employer.. how is annual leave calculated during this period?

    I understand that no annual leave is accrued for those temporarily laid off/receiving PUP but does an employee have to forego holiday entitlements despite working regular hours albeit subsidised?

    Had a look at Citizens Information site and it's a bit vague. Doesn't address this particular issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11 galway1234


    head82 wrote: »
    Struggling to find a definite answer to this one.

    Since been put on the WSS from mid March.. still working normal hours and topped up by employer.. how is annual leave calculated during this period?

    I understand that no annual leave is accrued for those temporarily laid off/receiving PUP but does an employee have to forego holiday entitlements despite working regular hours albeit subsidised?

    Had a look at Citizens Information site and it's a bit vague. Doesn't address this particular issue.

    You are entitled to holidays for the period you work regardless of being on the covid subsidy scheme. However if you were on layoff for any period you do not accrue holidays for that. So in your situation you are entitled to your full holiday entitlement. (I got legal advice on this).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 333 ✭✭head82


    galway1234 wrote: »
    You are entitled to holidays for the period you work regardless of being on the covid subsidy scheme. However if you were on layoff for any period you do not accrue holidays for that. So in your situation you are entitled to your full holiday entitlement. (I got legal advice on this).

    Cheers! Much appreciated. So many aspects of this scheme left unclarified.


  • Registered Users Posts: 254 ✭✭collsoft


    Hi Will,

    Basically, when you are taxed on a "Week 1" basis it means that you are being taxed as if its the first week of the year - and that is why they call it "Week 1"

    Now, most people are taxed on a "Cumulative" Basis.

    In a "Cumulative" basis your tax credits build up on a week to week basis.

    So in Week 1 you get 1 week's tax credits, in week 2 you get two weeks credits etc. So you accumulate tax credits as you go through the year until you reach the end of the year and you have 52 weeks of credits.

    Using this method your tax calculations are based on the total amount of pay that you have earned to date in the year.

    So in the situation where you were laid off in Week 12 (as many people weredue to COVID) and then you recommence work in Week 24 (last week), you have built up an additional 12 weeks of tax credits but you have not earned any pay.

    This triggers a tax refund based on your accumulated credits.

    In a "Week 1" basis you are always taxed as if its the first week of the year, and because its the first week you have only accumulated 1 week of credits, even though it was actually week 24 in the tax year, and therefore the calculation does not trigger any refunds.

    Now I have glossed over a few details here, but that about sums up how a "Week 1" works.

    I have to say that many Payroll Software companies suggested to Revenue at the start of the process back in March that perhaps employees should be put on a week one basis to prevent refunds and then taxing the subsidy at the end of the year - but Revenue decided against it.

    I can understand why they did this - they wanted to ensure that people had as much money in their pockets as was possible as we walked into the unknown.

    So their intentions were well placed and in the interest of the employee.

    Now with things getting back to normal Revenue are likely trying to reduce the end of year bills by eliminating unnecessary refunds.

    Also, with many people coming back to work after being on Social welfare the amounts of refunds are going to be very large.

    And remember, at this stage the PUP payment from Social welfare will be deemed taxable and employees will be charged tax by reduced tax credits from Revenue - similar to how Illness Benefit is currently taxed when you go back to work.

    Will23 wrote: »
    Thanks Jason, very useful to know, what does ‘week 1’ mean in layman’s terms?

    Will


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    As the subsidy scheme been definitely extended?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭eh i dunno


    c.p.w.g.w wrote: »
    As the subsidy scheme been definitely extended?

    Until August at least but will probably be extended further


  • Advertisement
Advertisement