Cash in Hand ?

P

Pablo74

Registered User
Messages
218
Hello all,
I have been asked to post this thread by a friend of mine who has a query about her wages.
She has been with her employer for the best part of 2 yrs now and asked for a small pay rise about 2 months ago. The boss agreed but since then she has been paid her wages every week ( as usual ) but she gets her payrise paid in cash.
What are the repercussions of this if there are any ? Is he doing something wrong ? Is she loosing out in any way ?
Thanks
Pablo
 
Is he doing something wrong ? Is she loosing out in any way ?
Click to expand...
Absolutly he is doing something wrong, he is not declaring her full wages, therefore he doesn't pay full PRSI and pension. And these are possibly not taxed either so he is defrauding the revenue.
And is she loosing out, well yes she is really - well for one she is loosing out on pension and she is also getting wages in cash and not declaring them to the revenue.
 
Problem is, if she asks for it in wages, probability is the raise will be used

.I.E raise cut to take into account tax.

The onus is on employer to pay tax, and as long as neither party complains here , she should be fine.

If redundancy was an issue, this could be an issue, as stated before pension
 
crumdub12 said:
Problem is, if she asks for it in wages, probability is the raise will be used

.I.E raise cut to take into account tax.
Click to expand...
Exactly - the employee is assessable for income tax and PRSI/health contribution deductions on the gross payrise.
The onus is on employer to pay tax, and as long as neither party complains here , she should be fine.
Click to expand...
Wrong! The onus is on the employer not to facilitate tax evasion and to apply/remit all necessary statutory tax and PRSI/health contribution deductions. But the onus remains on the individual employee taxpayer to ensure that his/her tax affairs are kept in order, that all relevant income is declared for tax etc. The fact that the employer is acting dodgily here in no way gets the employee off the hook!
 
Are you sure about that Clubman? I understood all monies paid to employees are assumed to be net of PAYE/PRSI etc. If the proverbial hits the fan it's the employer who is in the firing line.
 
I'm going to investigate this further because I believe you're both wrong. It's not another source of income as it's money from the same source.
 
It's not another source of income
Click to expand...
It is additional income - irrespective of the source.
I worked as an agency nurse while in collage, I had to do a number of private cases and was paid in cash - this also had to be declared to the revenue.
 
John Rambo said:
I'm going to investigate this further because I believe you're both wrong. It's not another source of income as it's money from the same source.
Click to expand...

Unless it's under €250 p.a. (in which case it could qualify for employer to employee small gift BIK exemption) then it seems obvious to me that it is additional income from the employment and thus assessable for income tax. Unless you are arguing that it's a gift and assessable for CAT/Gift Tax or something? Any reasonable analysis would class it as income since the original poster has said that it was given in respect of a salary increase (just illegally under the table!).
 
That is not the same. We're talking about income from one source...an employer paying an employee partially through PAYE and partially through cash. I'm basing my opinion on the case of someone I know. Essentially half their salary was being paid legitimately and the other half in cash. when this was discovered by the Revenue all payments to the employee were deemed net of deductions and the employer had to pay the taxes and penalties. The salient point was monies paid to an employee by an employer are net of deductions. Nothing happened to the employee at all.
 
But if the employee gets a payslip (and it's illegal not to get a payslip) then surely it's obvious that they are aware and therefore compliant with accepting cash "under the table" so they (as well as employer) should be answerable to revenue if found out.
 
John Rambo said:
That is not the same. We're talking about income from one source...an employer paying an employee partially through PAYE and partially through cash. I'm basing my opinion on the case of someone I know. Essentially half their salary was being paid legitimately and the other half in cash. when this was discovered by the Revenue all payments to the employee were deemed net of deductions and the employer had to pay the taxes and penalties. The salient point was monies paid to an employee by an employer are net of deductions. Nothing happened to the employee at all.
Click to expand...
If that happened in this situation then it in no way means that Revenue will treat every such incident the same way. I stand by my assertion that all individuals are ultimately responsible for keeping their tax affairs in order, to declare all assessable income etc. and failure to do so could lead to repercussions. Obviously employers are also responsible for applying and remitting all relevant statutory deductions from all relevant income.
 
What does her payslip say? If it includes the raise then it doesn't matter if a portion is paid in cash, tax, PRSI, etc would all be listed for the full value.

Although I would be seriously surprised if it does. Why else would they pay the only raise in cash?
 
Many of our customers would split the pay, some in cash, some by cheque, some by paypath etc. All the money, regardless how it is paid, still goes through the payroll. If an employee want (for example) €50, in their hand, then this is 'grossed up', and can be paid in cash.

As other posters have pointed out, it should all be quite clear what's going on from the payslip.
 
When I said onus on employer, my point was Employer initiated the transaction. It would be considered a bonus, which is a BIK (Benefit in Kind), and should be declared by employee.


But ..... as long as everyone keeps quiet, everything will tick on.

If employer is found out by Tax Man, onus will be on him to pay tax, or put squeeze on employee.

As its cash, no paper trail.
 
crumdub12 said:
When I said onus on employer, my point was Employer initiated the transaction. It would be considered a bonus, which is a BIK (Benefit in Kind), and should be declared by employee.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. The employer is legally obliged to process BIK tax and PRSI/health levy deductions at source (via payroll) on any benefits to which it applies and to pay them net of these deductions. It is not allowed for them to pay them gross and leave it to the employee to declare them. On the other hand if this happens the onus is still on the employee to declare them.
But ..... as long as everyone keeps quiet, everything will tick on.

If employer is found out by Tax Man, onus will be on him to pay tax, or put squeeze on employee.

As its cash, no paper trail.
Click to expand...
Just a hole in the company accounts which the accountants/auditors should spot?
 
Generally the company will raise dummy invoices from a fake company outside Ireland so as not to create a VAT fraud element, "pay" this company with a cheque made out to cash and just cash the cheque and pay the staff under the table.
 
John Rambo said:
Generally the company will raise dummy invoices from a fake company outside Ireland so as not to create a VAT fraud element, "pay" this company with a cheque made out to cash and just cash the cheque and pay the staff under the table.
Click to expand...

Is this kind of stuff (as detailed at the Mahon Tribunal) still going on routinely in smaller Irish companies? As an employee, I would suspect that any employer prepared to rip-off Revenue like this won't think twice about ripping off the employee when the opportunity arises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top