Wage Subsidy Scheme Issues

Thank you, that solves the mistery! There is indeed one single fortnightly payslip with the PRSI category of J9. There's nothing else of relevance on the revenue website and the payslips I got from my employer do not specify a TWSS parcel, but at least now I know I haven't paid extra tax and everything seems to be accurate.

collsoft wrote: »

Hi The Rover,

First, Revenue have published a full list of all employers who received TWSS. They have a spreadsheet and PDF list at

https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/twss/list-of-employers/index.aspx

Employers were required to inform their employees that they were on TWSS and as you pointed out it was supposed to be shown on your payslip.

I am aware of a small number of our own customers where TWSS was not shown correctly because the payslip templates did not get updated correctly when the payroll software was updated - but even in these cases it was clear to see how the Net pay was made up.

I would suggest that you log into your Revenue my account and check all your payslips in this employment between 26th March and 31st August (inclusive)

Here you will see what TWSS the employer reported as having paid you. You will also see that all payslips have a PRSI Class of "J9" which was used for TWSS.

Then compare that to any of the payslips that you have from the time and see if they match.

Revenue did conduct a compliance check where they asked employers to give copies of payslips and bank statements, but if you feel that your employer claimed TWSS but did not pay it to you then you can report it to Revenue.

Hope this helps

You are welcome, but in fairness there are quite a few very knowledgeable people on this thread, as well as other payroll software companies (Payback, Ardbrook, Parolla to name a few).

I for one will be glad to see the end of TWSS on 1st July when the reconciliation has ended.

NewRed2 wrote: »

fair play collsoft, you're a handy person to have around this thread

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

When does the tax people owe who were in TWSS have to be paid back by?

Hearing by October for some.

Thought it was over a few years according to revenue?

If you don't voluntarily pay it sooner, it will be taken via reductions in tax credits over 4 years, starting in 2022.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

When does the tax people owe who were in TWSS have to be paid back by?

Hearing by October for some.

Thought it was over a few years according to revenue?

You could go back to your employer and ask them to pay it, some employers have already knowing that the employee could take them to the WRC for essentially not paying full gross salary as per contracts.

Madeoface wrote: »

Eh, how would they do that? BIK payment? WRC likely to laugh at such cases if Employer was requiring state support.

Employer pay the employee tax? Can't imagine revenue would turn a blind eye to this.

Problem with WRC is that they handle things on a single case basis.


My (ex) employer unilaterally cut the entire office's salaries by 10% for a couple months. 11 employees went to the WRC. Since things become public, said employees started receiving pressure at work. 9 caved in. The remaining 2 kept on with WRC despite intimidation at work. WRC decided in their favor but only those 2 got their money refunded.


And that's the end of story, no further consequences, in particular because WRC results are anonymous - no "name and shame"

Madeoface wrote: »

Eh, how would they do that? BIK payment? WRC likely to laugh at such cases if Employer was requiring state support.

Employer pay the employee tax? Can't imagine revenue would turn a blind eye to this.

Ehh… tell me you know nothing about taxation and revenue without telling me you know nothing about taxation and revenue. There is a specific provision for this.

TWSS only was available if the employer did not pay more net than the employee already was receiving. As the TWSS element was not taxed at point of payment this essentially meant that employer that wishes to use TWSS could not pay full gross taxable pay. This is the employers issue not employees. Contracts state pay in gross values as tax allowances etc. are variable person to person. If employer paid TWSS they didn’t pay employees correct wage. Employee is intitled to their full gross pay and WRC will uphold this. There were plenty of employers cash rich that paid TWSS even though they could afford correct pay. TWSS was changed to EWSS to fix this “net” issue later.

Hi Madeoface,

Its a fair enough question that you asked, so let me try and explain how it works.

1) So the first thing to say is that anybody who was on TWSS in 2020 now owes TAX and USC on the total amount of TWSS that you were paid.

2) This liability technically belongs to the employee - not the employer.

3) Many employers have decided that in the interest of fairness they would like to help their employees pay some or all of this tax bill - in recognition of the fact that many employees were working full time and not being paid their full wages.

4) Normally if an employer paid an employee's tax bill it would be liable to BIK. However, Revenue have recognised that this is a unique situation and they have suspended the charge of BIK on these payments until end of September.

5) If an employer has decided to do this then they need to sit down and have a discussion with the employee. Revenue will not tell the employer how much extra tax you owe because of TWSS. You must sit down with you employer and show them your Statement of Liability for 2020 which will show how much you owe - this is tricky because many people may owe tax for other reasons, and if you are self assesed you cant get this statement.

6) Once you and your employer have struck a deal on how much they will pay they have two choices. They can pay you directly, and then you pay Revenue. Or Revenue can make a payment to directly to Revenue on your behalf.

Either way there is no BIK or change to your Gross Pay etc - just the amount of tax and USC that you paid in 2020

I hope this helps, but I know it is confusing for employees.

Madeoface wrote: »

I asked how they would do it. They are doing it and ignoring usual BIK per the revenue guidance. That's the answer ta.

Didn't really understand your first para.

kennethsmyth wrote: »

I just want to point out that the full gross wage was due to be paid to employees and they were not given the choice by employers to utilise TWSS or refuse. You are taking an employers lean on this.

The employer has essentially changed the terms of the employees contract - the idea that TWSS was an employees assistance instead of an employers assistance is being disingenuous as the government did not state this from day one, it was given this lean after TWSS was in play for a while.

WRC will see that employer pays full gross but it will obviously take time. This was a very unfair thing to the employees that worked full time. Revenue should of not taxed the TWSS and all would be good. I can see many cases going to WRC over this once the tax issue takes hold.

Tbf it's not taking 'an employers lean', it's a fact. The tax is the employee's liability, there's no escaping that.

That there are employers who reduced employees gross wage without their knowledge and / or consent is a separate, legal issue.

collsoft wrote: »

Hi Kennysmyth,

I am not taking any lean on this one way or the other - I am just pointing out the facts as they are - All tax liabilities arising from TWSS fall on the employee.

In my next point I stated that "3) Many employers have decided that in the interest of fairness they would like to help their employees pay some or all of this tax bill - in recognition of the fact that many employees were working full time and not being paid their full wages."

The question was asked about the issue of BIK if the employer was paying the employees tax liabilities arising from TWSS and I was merely trying to address that point.

I am aware of employees considering taking a case to the WRC along the lines that you have mentioned, but Im not aware if any have gotten that far yet.

The only change to employment law during the pandemic was around the issue of the redundancy and being laid off work, but I have always stated that all other employment law (including employment contracts) remain in force.

Apologies Collsoft, I let myself read too much into your post. I just feel that some employers have taken advantage of employees that were working full time and their salaries were essentially reduced without consent. Gov were complacent in how they applied TWSS. Anyone who worked in payrolll knew as soon as only max net pay was allowed including TWSS element that it was wrong and would affect employees as in they would have to carry the can.

Got a letter from revenue

seems we need to fill a monthly return now to keep claiming subsidy.

first one is for June and has to be done by 30 July which is a bit rich as it just arrived in post today and with Covid lots of offices are still closed and it’s holiday time so many not get the notice that this needs to be done.

atter this, they have to be done by 15th of each month.

ive not looked on ROS yet for the form so not sure how easy/complicated it is.

You have no right to ask your company to not claim a subsidy they are entitled to.

Indeed they don’t even have to tell you if they are claiming the subsidy or not.

i know you could look up which companies had claimed, but I’m not sure if there is a ‘live’ list.

so how would the bank even know if your job is claiming a subsidy?

the only strong letter I would be writing would be to the bank, that is an absolutely disgraceful thing for them to ask.

Agree it's complete b******s acting by the banks... So if there's no live list I could just ask HR for a letter stating the company isn't on it... Nobody said it had to be a truthful letter

Principal of utmost good faith would be entirely breached by knowingly doing this.

Hi Seve,

There is an updated list of employers who received EWSS being published on Revenue this week!

BTW I hate this new boards website - cant find many of the threads I was watching

Agree with you Collsoft. New site is hard to navigate, especially on the mobile

also agree that lots wouldn’t be keeping on top of their accounts, but really they don’t have to. They just need to know their turnover for this, so it’s not that much work.

but a weeks notice was a joke