Wage Subsidy Scheme Issues

Tow

Here is the Guidance: https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/documents/twss/twss-reconciliation-employer-guidance.pdf

30 pages of interesting reading, which references multiple other documents.

PickYourName

Tow wrote: »

Here is the Guidance: https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/documents/twss/twss-reconciliation-employer-guidance.pdf

30 pages of interesting reading, which references multiple other documents.

Oh, God! At this stage, I feel like just giving them my personal debit card details and tell them to take what they want, if they promise to make it all stop!

Pistachio19

Ours was correct to the cent. I have accepted it so I assume they come looking for payment soon.

jos28

Well this is fun ! I've gone through my rec and it's €29 out. It refers to one employee during the first week. I'm happy enough to pay what's due but do I need to resubmit his payslip for that week?

jammiedodgers

jos28 wrote: »

Well this is fun ! I've gone through my rec and it's €29 out. It refers to one employee during the first week. I'm happy enough to pay what's due but do I need to resubmit his payslip for that week?

I think Revenue will consider that as balanced as it's within €500

https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/twss/reconciliation/why-does-a-reconciliation-balance-arise.aspx

jos28

jammiedodgers wrote: »

I think Revenue will consider that as balanced as it's within €500

https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/twss/reconciliation/why-does-a-reconciliation-balance-arise.aspx

Thanks a million, I'll be glad to pay up and put that file away in the archives !

Seve OB

difference is €613
have it reconciled, gone through all the documents and it seems to indicate the differences should be because i have payslips i need to upload.
but they are all uploaded

I'm not really sure what i can do to change it, i think they have made mistakes.
they changed the subsidy for someone downwards because they changed the average net pay. (it appears incorrectly) i never updated (was never aware of the change till now)
this one person amounts of about €450 of the difference, they are no longer employed. (retired)
the other differences were for 3 other people and also stem from changes the revenue made. (2 of whom have left employment)

i guess i could try and query with them. bit I've just accepted and will pay the difference and hope they are happy enough with that.

PickYourName

Seve OB wrote: »

difference is €613
have it reconciled, gone through all the documents and it seems to indicate the differences should be because i have payslips i need to upload.
but they are all uploaded

I'm not really sure what i can do to change it, i think they have made mistakes.
they changed the subsidy for someone downwards because they changed the average net pay. (it appears incorrectly) i never updated (was never aware of the change till now)
this one person amounts of about €450 of the difference, they are no longer employed. (retired)
the other differences were for 3 other people and also stem from changes the revenue made. (2 of whom have left employment)

i guess i could try and query with them. bit I've just accepted and will pay the difference and hope they are happy enough with that.

I assume they're looking for more than you think they're owed? I can well understand just wanting to be rid of it and pay up, but €600+ is a bit chunky.

I think I'd be inclined to engage with them to try and resolve even that largest amount of €450: that's quite a diffference, and worth a couple of hours effort if it pays off, no?

Seve OB

PickYourName wrote: »

I assume they're looking for more than you think they're owed? I can well understand just wanting to be rid of it and pay up, but €600+ is a bit chunky.

I think I'd be inclined to engage with them to try and resolve even that largest amount of €450: that's quite a diffference, and worth a couple of hours effort if it pays off, no?

Yes they are looking for more. I’m happy to pay it and be done.
I can see exactly where the difference is, just no idea why the revenue made the changes and any of the documents I’ve read do not help in resolving.
They changed the subsidy amount allowed downwards by 29 or so per week. I have a feeling this may well be because the employee was already in receipt of a pension from previous employment.
They also completely disallowed one weeks subsidy payment for this employee.
I think it’s all mistakes at their end but I just couldn’t be arsed at this stage

Tow

Steve, The problem is the week they disallowed. In Revenue's view if an employee did not qualify for a subsidy TWSS payment, then they (and the employer) did not qualify for J9 PRSI. By their own rules you will have to calculate the difference between J9 and the employes normal Class and pay the difference etc. This is covered in the Guidance PDF which links to another PRSI corrections PDF.

On face value it does not seem correct they disallowed one week, providing the employees 'topup' (Gross Pay) did not exceed their upper limit.

It will be well worth your time raising the issue with them. Even if you accepted the Reconciliation you can make amendments, much the same as with PMOD normal payroll submissions.

PickYourName

Seve OB wrote: »

I think it’s all mistakes at their end but I just couldn’t be arsed at this stage

If it's any consolation, I know exactly how you feel!

Seve OB

Ok, working on another company now.
All new to me, I wasn’t doing the payroll, just trying to finish the rec.

TWSS paid by you to revenue 26k matches the amount payable.

But TWSS paid by you to employees is approx 600€ more.

TWSS owed to revenue is obviously nil.

I downloaded the csv file and spot the individual who was essentially paid to much of a subsidy........... it’s the person who would have been doing the payroll but no longer works here. Was only put on the twss for the last 6 weeks and was overpaid the subsidy each week by about €100.

1 other person with a difference (overpaid by about 80€) in only 1 week.

Odd or convenient???

No liability due, I’ll probably just accept it.

Have 2 more associated companies to look at over the next week or 2 so I’ll wait till then to see what they pan out like

PickYourName

Seve OB wrote: »

TWSS paid by you to revenue 26k matches the amount payable.

But TWSS paid by you to employees is approx 600€ more.

TWSS owed to revenue is obviously nil.

You raise an interesting question. We're in a similar position, though thankfully a much smaller amount, so I haven't been that concerned about it.

In effect, you've just paid your employee some extra income, which you didn't deduct PAYE etc. from as you should have done.

I'm fairly sure Revenue will go looking for the missing tax from the employee (as the TWSS payment itself is taxable), the question is will they go after the employer for not deducting tax on what's effectively a cash payment to an employee?

One would hope they'd accept it was just a mistake (not exactly unlikely, given the nature of the scheme) and leave us in peace?

Tow

Revenue will go after the employee for the extra tax and USC. The problem is if the employee is not eligible for any TWSS. Then the employee and the employer are not eligible for J9 PRSI. See the PRSI corrections PDF link in the guidance for details.

PickYourName

Tow wrote: »

Revenue will go after the employee for the extra tax and USC. The problem is if the employee is not eligible for any TWSS. Then the employee and the employer are not eligible for J9 PRSI. See the PRSI corrections PDF link in the guidance for details.

Thanks! We're OK, as they were eligable, it was just the amount that they're claiming is wrong (I don't see why, but have no desire to question it).

I'd forgotten about the employer PRSI and I can see why they'd come after the employer for that OK. I'm just relieved we're not in that situation.

Seve OB

Would the employee reconciliation which was done for the whole country a while back where people were hit with tax bills (or refunds in some cases) not have picked up on those amounts though so essentially tax has been paid, or at least charged to the employee?

MildThing84

Anybody having issues with submissions yesterday or today? Any issue with the system changing after 31st March?

jammiedodgers

MildThing84 wrote: »

Anybody having issues with submissions yesterday or today? Any issue with the system changing after 31st March?

What payroll software do you use?

Sage Micropay sent an email saying errors may appear on submissions if the pay date was April 1st or later but it wouldn't affect anything and you could still submit.

Seve OB

jammiedodgers wrote: »

What payroll software do you use?

Sage Micropay sent an email saying errors may appear on submissions if the pay date was April 1st or later but it wouldn't affect anything and you could still submit.

just came on to post that i got a load of warnings when doing my submission, EWSS can only be claimed between 1 sept & 31 march.
was still allowed to submit.

never got an email from sage though

seeknans

Hi, anyone here have knowledge or experience on how an employer could fairly select some essential employees to be placed on twss even though all employees were essential and worked through the 5 month period of the scheme side by side. I have just discovered that some of my co workers who were eligble for the scheme, were for some reason not put on it.. employer is saying that it was revenue who picked who was on it... I smell BS... but why would my employer not put everyone on it seeing as it would have got them extra cash? They did make up the the net pay but obviously I am annoyed that I worked the same hours through the pandemic as others but I'm faced with an underpayment of tax and others are not.. because they were not put on scheme in first place... I understand that the employer could pick employees who were thought to be affected by the pandemic but in our case none were so why choose to only put some on it???

PickYourName

seeknans wrote: »

employer is saying that it was revenue who picked who was on it... I smell BS

Your sense of smell is spot on: that is 100% BS.

seeknans wrote: »

... but why would my employer not put everyone on it seeing as it would have got them extra cash?

There should be no "extra cash" either way.

There's a lot of confusion around this.

Your employer is bound to pay you what is in your contract of employment. The fact that some of that payment may have come from the government, by way of the TWSS, is irrelevant to that. The complication is that TWSS is not taxed at source, as with other pay, so if there's any tax due, you will be liable to pay it at some point.

Your employer cannot reduce your pay or alter the terms of your employemnt, for example, by reducing your hours worked, without your prior agreement.

kennethsmyth

seeknans wrote: »

Hi, anyone here have knowledge or experience on how an employer could fairly select some essential employees to be placed on twss even though all employees were essential and worked through the 5 month period of the scheme side by side. I have just discovered that some of my co workers who were eligble for the scheme, were for some reason not put on it.. employer is saying that it was revenue who picked who was on it... I smell BS... but why would my employer not put everyone on it seeing as it would have got them extra cash? They did make up the the net pay but obviously I am annoyed that I worked the same hours through the pandemic as others but I'm faced with an underpayment of tax and others are not.. because they were not put on scheme in first place... I understand that the employer could pick employees who were thought to be affected by the pandemic but in our case none were so why choose to only put some on it???

Employer has essentially reduced your gross pay, just ask employer to pay correct gross or the twss tax liability, if refuses get in queue for wrc- there’s going to be a lot this year

seeknans

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Employer has essentially reduced your gross pay, just ask employer to pay correct gross or the twss tax liability, if refuses get in queue for wrc- there’s going to be a lot this year

Yes, but is there some reason the employer would not put everyone eligible on the scheme?

PickYourName

seeknans wrote: »

Yes, but is there some reason the employer would not put everyone eligible on the scheme?

Nothing obvious I can think of.

The point is, though, that it should be irrelevant to the employee (apart from the inconvenience of not having tax deducted at source).

They key things are, though:

Were your wages reduced?
If so, did you agree to it?

My guess - and it's only a guess - is that anyone on the TWSS did have their wages reduced and didn't agree to it.

seeknans

PickYourName wrote: »

Nothing obvious I can think of.

The point is, though, that it should be irrelevant to the employee (apart from the inconvenience of not having tax deducted at source).

They key things are, though:

Were your wages reduced?
If so, did you agree to it?

My guess - and it's only a guess - is that anyone on the TWSS did have their wages reduced and didn't agree to it.

In my case, my net wages were actually up by the exact amount that the non deduction of employee prsi for the 5 months adds up to, about €800. But I have an underpayment of tax now of 2.5k, On the other hand my employer saved the employer prsi, reduced my gross pay and got the subsidy so their benefit on me was €15k...( I am one of over 100 employees put on the scheme) i did not agree to any change in my gross pay.... and just to recap, I worked every working day throughout 2020.
Back to my original point, my employer has caused great division between employees by not putting everyone eligible on it and I can't understand why. Could it be a mistake when working out the arwnp? Was it the employer or revenue who calculated this?

If there are any employers on here who could describe the process of applying for the scheme that would interesting, I'm guessing the employer had to put forward the employees who they thought were at risk of being on short time/laid off because of 25% business decline and then calculate the arwnp to see if they were eligible?

kennethsmyth

In truth the employer had to ask to put someone on the twss as it changed the amount of gross the employer had to pay and as such would be a change in an employees contract - this would of had to been mutually agreed.

Employees rights are not put on hold in a pandemic - other than the gov taking away the employees right to request redundancy if laid off for extended periods.

The only reasons I can think of for not putting someone on the twss are:

1. If an employee was being paid over a certain value they would of not been "eligible" for the twss.
2. Employee disagreed with the employer, knew it would cause a reduction in gross pay and a taxable amount at end of year and therefore refused to accept the change.

Either way if I was yourself with a 2.5k tax liability I would be definitely having a serious conversation with the employer. Tax must be paid or correct gross paid to make up for taxable amount.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil and the employer will be aware that there are unhappy employees due to this and will look to ride it out.

If you are strong in your employment and happy that you are either needed or have good prospects elsewhere if need be I'd be pushing on the employer to rectify or prepare for a wrc case.

Your employer has benefited from the twss not the employee, the scheme was badly designed in that it created a tax liability for employees that it should not have. (kicked the issue down the road) and encouraged employers to essentially reduce the gross pay for fully working employees.

Prior to this revenue would never work on net pay - why did they for this? The fact the twss was changed to ewss later on shows they knew the issues that would be raised. If they didn't then revenue are idiots - and I don't think that - in other words they knew and hoped the lockdown would be short and nobody would care for a couple of hundred not 2.5k

PickYourName

seeknans wrote: »

If there are any employers on here who could describe the process of applying for the scheme that would interesting, I'm guessing the employer had to put forward the employees who they thought were at risk of being on short time/laid off because of 25% business decline and then calculate the arwnp to see if they were eligible?

Employer here.

There were two sets of criteria about who could apply, for the employer and the employee.

The main employer's qualification criteria was that their business had to have been affected by the pandemic and be able to demonstrate a loss of business of at least 25% as a result.

Once they qualify, the employer can use the TWSS for as many employees as they like, subject to the individual employee qualifying.

The main employee criteria for qualifying is that they were on the payroll during January and February of 2020 and that their gross pay did not exceed €960/week. Note: it’s more complex than that, but that's essentially corrrect.

So, the most obvious reason for not including someone would be if they were not on the payroll or they were over the pay threshold for the relevant period. Another possibility is that there is more than one company involved, one of which qualifies and one which doesn’t.

By the way, if you received the same net pay as normal, you should not owe any tax. You should check the records that Revenue have with your payslips. The total of your gross pay on your payslips plus the TWSS paid (which should be shown as a separate amount) should equal your contracted gross salary for the year. If it doesn’t, you’ve been under or over paid.

PickYourName

kennethsmyth wrote: »

The only reasons I can think of for not putting someone on the twss are:

1. If an employee was being paid over a certain value they would of not been "eligible" for the twss.
2. Employee disagreed with the employer, knew it would cause a reduction in gross pay and a taxable amount at end of year and therefore refused to accept the change.

Notwithstanding my own answer to this, which was very similar, I've just thought of another potential reason.

The criteria state the employer has to declare they cannot afford to pay the employee their full wages. Potentially, an employer may be in a position where they can afford to pay some, but not all of their employees. They may be concerned that Revenue would subsequently disallow the TWSS if they simply claimed for everyone, and consequently only claimed for a percentage of eligible employees. It would be up to the employer to then decide which ones to include.

Also: it's not clear if the employee actually has the right to decide they want to be included or not.

tina1040

PickYourName wrote: »

By the way, if you received the same net pay as normal, you should not owe any tax. You should check the records that Revenue have with your payslips. The total of your gross pay on your payslips plus the TWSS paid (which should be shown as a separate amount) should equal your contracted gross salary for the year. If it doesn’t, you’ve been under or over paid.

That's not correct.
The total of gross pay plus TWSS should equal the AWNP as calculated by Revenue based on Jan& Feb 2020 net pay.

PickYourName

tina1040 wrote: »

That's not correct.
The total of gross pay plus TWSS should equal the AWNP as calculated by Revenue based on Jan& Feb 2020 net pay.

I meant for the entire year.

Total gross pay plus TWSS both as recorded on payslips should equal contracted pay for the year. If it doesn't you've been under or overpaid.