PUP payment duration

I suppose the argument is going to be that if you have used the capital allowance to reduce the tax liability on your profit, that it should also be used to determine your profit for the purpose of this application.

It is not gross income or turnover that is being assessed, it is profit.

How do you propose to account for the expense of the asset? Year of purchase of the asset? If the assets were purchased in a previous year, then you could argue that it is unfair to take them into account to determine current (or 2018) income. But then you would need to make sure that you don't have other capital expenses in 2018 that will be spread out over future years.

I don't think either argument will be particularly attractive for the review officer. They will want to maintain as consistent an approach with Revenue as possible to avoid anomolies.

If your 2019 or 2020 figures are better for you, that may be a better argument. The 2018 figures are only being used as a guide, if you can show that your 2019 or 2020 income was higher than 200 (after capital allowances taken into account), then you have a better argument why you should get the higher rate of payment for an interruption of income that occurs in 2020.
 
lughildanach said:
How do you propose to account for the expense of the asset? Year of purchase of the asset? If the assets were purchased in a previous year, then you could argue that it is unfair to take them into account to determine current (or 2018) income. But then you would need to make sure that you don't have other capital expenses in 2018 that will be spread out over future years.

I don't think either argument will be particularly attractive for the review officer. They will want to maintain as consistent an approach with Revenue as possible to avoid anomolies.

If your 2019 or 2020 figures are better for you, that may be a better argument. The 2018 figures are only being used as a guide, if you can show that your 2019 or 2020 income was higher than 200 (after capital allowances taken into account), then you have a better argument why you should get the higher rate of payment for an interruption of income that occurs in 2020.
Click to expand...

I take your point but still feel I have an argument for the higher rate as the capital allowances are for annual depreciation, which continues whether working or not.

It's straight line depreciation over eight years. The main asset was purchased in 2018 and the others in 2017.

The 2019 tax return hasn't been submitted yet but it would help my appeal if it had as my income was higher in 2019.
 
ATC110 said:
I take your point but still feel I have an argument for the higher rate as the capital allowances are for annual depreciation, which continues whether working or not.

It's straight line depreciation over eight years. The main asset was purchased in 2018 and the others in 2017.

The 2019 tax return hasn't been submitted yet but it would help my appeal if it had as my income was higher in 2019.
Click to expand...
Perhaps arrange for 2019 to be submitted ASAP. Or at least provide the documentation that shows your 2019 income.

As for the depreciation, you're right that it continues (from an accounting and taxation point of view) but I don't see how that helps your case. If the depreciation continues, then it surely ought to be taken into account as an expense, thereby reducing profit? By deducting the allowance, they are taking it into account. You surely need to argue the opposite, that it should not be taken into account. Although that would be difficult if the main asset was purcahsed in 2018. Indeed, as your asset was purchased in 2018, you are at an advantage as the whole value of the asset has not been taken into account, but spread over 8 years. This inflates your profit for 2018 over the cash position, which would be even lower if the value had been deducted from your profit fully.
 
Indeed if you were to submit 2019 return, and the capital allowance again made the difference between being over or under the 200 Euro threshold, you may be better by not claiming the allowance on your tax return.

You will pay more tax, but will receive more PUP. Of course, its very hard to tell which would be better in the long run, when we don't know how long the PUP will continue. And of course it will depend on the value of the capital allowance to your tax bill.
 
lughildanach said:
Perhaps arrange for 2019 to be submitted ASAP. Or at least provide the documentation that shows your 2019 income.

As for the depreciation, you're right that it continues (from an accounting and taxation point of view) but I don't see how that helps your case. If the depreciation continues, then it surely ought to be taken into account as an expense, thereby reducing profit? By deducting the allowance, they are taking it into account. You surely need to argue the opposite, that it should not be taken into account. Although that would be difficult if the main asset was purcahsed in 2018. Indeed, as your asset was purchased in 2018, you are at an advantage as the whole value of the asset has not been taken into account, but spread over 8 years. This inflates your profit for 2018 over the cash position, which would be even lower if the value had been deducted from your profit fully.
Click to expand...

To clarify, I am a sole trader rather than a limited company but I think I understand your point re an argument apropos spreading the cost of a capital purchase being in my favour
 
lughildanach said:
Indeed if you were to submit 2019 return, and the capital allowance again made the difference between being over or under the 200 Euro threshold, you may be better by not claiming the allowance on your tax return.

You will pay more tax, but will receive more PUP. Of course, its very hard to tell which would be better in the long run, when we don't know how long the PUP will continue. And of course it will depend on the value of the capital allowance to your tax bill.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is much uncertainty so by not claiming the allowance I may end up worse off in the medium term.
It has been reported over the weekend that the PUP will continue until Spring 2021 although on a reducing rate - from €350 to €300 by the end of the year then down to €250 but anyone on the lower rate would obviously still be much better off getting the higher rate
 
ATC110 said:
Yes, there is much uncertainty so by not claiming the allowance I may end up worse off in the medium term.
It has been reported over the weekend that the PUP will continue until Spring 2021 although on a reducing rate - from €350 to €300 by the end of the year then down to €250 but anyone on the lower rate would obviously still be much better off getting the higher rate
Click to expand...
Will depend on how much the capital allowance is worth to you. And also how long you expect to remain on the PUP.

In your preparation for the appeal, you could ask for details of any guidelines or policy issued regarding how income is to be calculated, and details of where this was published. You have a right to fair procedure and natural justice, which includes the application of fair and reasonable policies to guard against the potential for arbitrary decision making. And if your 2019 figures assist you, please do consider using them to back up your case.

Good luck in the appeal. Do let us know how you get on.
 
Hi All,

I am self-employed. Have up-to-date tax clearance cert, and have submitted tax returns (including PRSI class S) for 2018. I'd been receiving PUP until I had to submit the confirmation of eligibility- which I did, in good faith- and then I was told they were reducing me to €203 because they'd no record of me on Revenue. I appealed that, and submitted my tax clearance to prove I am on the Revenue system. Latest correspondance today says they have no record of PRSI contributions for 2018 so they're cutting off my payment altogether. Wth?! I paid it and it's all up to date, why are they claiming there's no record??! Obvs I've appealed again (and included evidence of PRSI Class S payments in 2018, and current tax clearance cert), but they've left me with no income! Anyone else in this situation? This is the most recent email:

Dear applicant,

We have reviewed your application for Covid Pandemic Unemployment Payment.

Our review of your application shows that:

The Department does not have any recent record of PRSI contributions paid by you at the following Classes: A/E/H/P/S.

As a result, we cannot make a decision on your claim at this time for the following reasons:

1. We cannot verify if you were in employment before claiming the Covid Pandemic Unemployment Payment.
2. We cannot determine the rate of payment which should apply to your claim.

Because of this, it is not possible to make any payments to you.

If you contend that this is inaccurate, you should supply documentation to support this. However, it is important to note that we will only accept earnings which have been notified to Revenue and have been subject to PRSI. You should clearly understand that any information which is supplied to declare earnings will be matched against Revenue records and any discrepancies will be followed up.

Requests for a review should be emailed to [email protected] and you should attach all supporting documentation to this email.

Alternatively, you can write to Freepost, PUP Rerate Requests, DEASP, Intreo Centre, Cork Road, Waterford, again making sure to include all supporting documentation.

Please do not respond to this email as this mailbox is not monitored.

Any advice or insights much appreciated!
 
If a vulnerable person is on the covid payment, and an employer wants them back to work, is there a danger that they could be sacked if don't return to work, and can civic payment be stopped if you have been asked back to work?
 
horse7 said:
If a vulnerable person is on the covid payment, and an employer wants them back to work, is there a danger that they could be sacked if don't return to work, and can civic payment be stopped if you have been asked back to work?
Click to expand...


The employer will have to ensure it's safe as can be for the person to return but if empioyee feels it's not safe enough for them to return well then they will have to resign. They can always apply for unemployment benefit.
 
Received a written reply today, postmarked Waterford, to my request for a review of the weekly rate.

The outcome of the review is I will remain on the lower rate.

It explicitly states "under PUP rating rules, self-employed incomes can only be examined in respect of the 2018 year and the income figures used by the Department for PUP (and all other schemes) is always the figure after capital allowances and deductible business expenses".

There is no return address on the letter and it's signed the "PUP Rerate Team".

There is also no invitation to submit 2019 tax return details.

Has anyone had a similar letter or have they been invited to submit 2019 details?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top