Furlough Fraud
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53080428
We all knew this would happen. I hope they catch these employers and make them pay back the money, with some sort of fine. I'd leave it at that to be honest. It's been a tough time for all, so rather than waste more taxpayers money taking them to court, fine them and if the employer really feels hard done by they can take HMRC to court over it.
We all knew this would happen. I hope they catch these employers and make them pay back the money, with some sort of fine. I'd leave it at that to be honest. It's been a tough time for all, so rather than waste more taxpayers money taking them to court, fine them and if the employer really feels hard done by they can take HMRC to court over it.
s1962a said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53080428
We all knew this would happen. I hope they catch these employers and make them pay back the money, with some sort of fine. I'd leave it at that to be honest. It's been a tough time for all, so rather than waste more taxpayers money taking them to court, fine them and if the employer really feels hard done by they can take HMRC to court over it.
As long as the fine is 2x what the furlough payments were then I'm cool with that.We all knew this would happen. I hope they catch these employers and make them pay back the money, with some sort of fine. I'd leave it at that to be honest. It's been a tough time for all, so rather than waste more taxpayers money taking them to court, fine them and if the employer really feels hard done by they can take HMRC to court over it.
s1962a said:
We all knew this would happen. I hope they catch these employers and make them pay back the money, with some sort of fine. I'd leave it at that to be honest. It's been a tough time for all, so rather than waste more taxpayers money taking them to court, fine them and if the employer really feels hard done by they can take HMRC to court over it.
I wouldn't, no excuse at all for fraud, it's a total mick take.Fine or prison, just like normal benefit fraud.
I’m working at home as is my wife who works for hmrc. So observing and listening in, On a similar note the fraud from the self employed is staggering. You know all these who have never declared proper income but then wanted the govt payouts based on past tax submissions. Or the 1000’s coming out of the woodwork as they had that short gap to stick a claim in for the first time after 30 years of non declaration.
austinsmirk said:
I’m working at home as is my wife who works for hmrc. So observing and listening in, On a similar note the fraud from the self employed is staggering. You know all these who have never declared proper income but then wanted the govt payouts based on past tax submissions. Or the 1000’s coming out of the woodwork as they had that short gap to stick a claim in for the first time after 30 years of non declaration.
The self employed payout is averaged from the last 3? Tax submissions, so if they under declared they would receive less not more surely austinsmirk said:
On a similar note the fraud from the self employed is staggering. You know all these who have never declared proper income but then wanted the govt payouts based on past tax submissions. Or the 1000’s coming out of the woodwork as they had that short gap to stick a claim in for the first time after 30 years of non declaration.
I also have a few friends who have been caught out, not much sympathy from me.TheRainMaker said:
austinsmirk said:
On a similar note the fraud from the self employed is staggering. You know all these who have never declared proper income but then wanted the govt payouts based on past tax submissions. Or the 1000’s coming out of the woodwork as they had that short gap to stick a claim in for the first time after 30 years of non declaration.
I also have a few friends who have been caught out, not much sympathy from me.On the other side of the self-employed coin - my wife started her business 2 years ago whilst working full time
Went part time as the business grew
Left the part time job last year and went self-employed only
Both her tax returns have shown PAYE income. Her last one she earned more from the part time job than the self employment
So she has no return showing her earning SE income only, and hence qualifies for nothing
The business is currently being run virtually pending the ability to reopen fully but her income is reduced - so she went out and got a 30hr a week job cleaning at the local hospital
I've carried on working as normal but from home all the way through
Taking into account reduced expenditure we're better off than we were before, but this won't apply to all - a lot of newly self-employed have fallen through the gaps
Went part time as the business grew
Left the part time job last year and went self-employed only
Both her tax returns have shown PAYE income. Her last one she earned more from the part time job than the self employment
So she has no return showing her earning SE income only, and hence qualifies for nothing
The business is currently being run virtually pending the ability to reopen fully but her income is reduced - so she went out and got a 30hr a week job cleaning at the local hospital
I've carried on working as normal but from home all the way through
Taking into account reduced expenditure we're better off than we were before, but this won't apply to all - a lot of newly self-employed have fallen through the gaps
Pieman68 said:
On the other side of the self-employed coin - my wife started her business 2 years ago whilst working full time
Went part time as the business grew
Left the part time job last year and went self-employed only
Both her tax returns have shown PAYE income. Her last one she earned more from the part time job than the self employment
So she has no return showing her earning SE income only, and hence qualifies for nothing
The business is currently being run virtually pending the ability to reopen fully but her income is reduced - so she went out and got a 30hr a week job cleaning at the local hospital
I've carried on working as normal but from home all the way through
Taking into account reduced expenditure we're better off than we were before, but this won't apply to all - a lot of newly self-employed have fallen through the gaps
I understand that, but we are talking about people have gone out of their way to avoid paying tax and have now been bitten.Went part time as the business grew
Left the part time job last year and went self-employed only
Both her tax returns have shown PAYE income. Her last one she earned more from the part time job than the self employment
So she has no return showing her earning SE income only, and hence qualifies for nothing
The business is currently being run virtually pending the ability to reopen fully but her income is reduced - so she went out and got a 30hr a week job cleaning at the local hospital
I've carried on working as normal but from home all the way through
Taking into account reduced expenditure we're better off than we were before, but this won't apply to all - a lot of newly self-employed have fallen through the gaps
Compliance will be pretty simple in most cases; the money is there to support the business, so if accounts and tax submissions show the business didn't need the support it'll be an easy find.
The difficult ones will be where the business committed the fraud so everyone could have an extended holiday as it'll be much harder to establish why the turnover fell off a cliff. But if all the other window manufacturers furloughed for a few weeks while they got sorted and then cracked on, for example, then the contempories that pretended there was no demand for 6 months will stick out too.
The difficult ones will be where the business committed the fraud so everyone could have an extended holiday as it'll be much harder to establish why the turnover fell off a cliff. But if all the other window manufacturers furloughed for a few weeks while they got sorted and then cracked on, for example, then the contempories that pretended there was no demand for 6 months will stick out too.
If companies have really taken the piss like having people in work but not telling them they are on it, or even getting rid of people but still taking the money, then yes they need to be done for it.
But the entire point of it was to save peoples jobs, if that means a few people have done a bit of work when on furlough here and there and that means their job and company are still there at the end of it then I am not to bothered.
If a company have followed all the rules to the letter but end up telling half the staff not to bother coming back at the end, then its been a complete waste of money. People claiming and keeping people on furlough knowing that they wont be coming back is just as bad as claiming it fraudulently.
But the entire point of it was to save peoples jobs, if that means a few people have done a bit of work when on furlough here and there and that means their job and company are still there at the end of it then I am not to bothered.
If a company have followed all the rules to the letter but end up telling half the staff not to bother coming back at the end, then its been a complete waste of money. People claiming and keeping people on furlough knowing that they wont be coming back is just as bad as claiming it fraudulently.
Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Thursday 18th June 16:03
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff