# PUP payment duration



## ATC110 (3 Jun 2020)

Is the PUP €350 payable for 12 weeks or 8th June (whichever occurs soonest) regardless of how many payments have been received?


----------



## lughildanach (4 Jun 2020)

Yes.  But it is about to be extended.  There are reports of it being reduced for part-time workers to the regular Jobseekers rate, but how they would do that is as yet unclear.  The official position is that there hasn't been a decision on it yet.  There should be some announcement in the next day or two.  Is currently being debated in the Dáil.


----------



## lughildanach (5 Jun 2020)

Can't find the link now, but read a report this morning that says there will be two bands for the revised PUP.  Those earning less than 200 Euro before the pandemic will get 203/week, with those over 200 euro continuing to get the 350.

It will be interesting to see how they calculate the reference wage for seasonal workers or other workers with irregular hours, or for the self-employed.


----------



## ATC110 (5 Jun 2020)

lughildanach said:


> It will be interesting to see how they calculate the reference wage for seasonal workers or other workers with irregular hours, or for the self-employed.



How will it work for the self-employed - gross profit or net profit? Despite not working the business owner still has most if not all of the same overheads


----------



## lughildanach (9 Jun 2020)

ATC110 said:


> How will it work for the self-employed - gross profit or net profit? Despite not working the business owner still has most if not all of the same overheads



The published information does not make any mention of self-employment in determining the lower rate





__





						COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP)
					

A social welfare payment to support employees and self-employed people who are unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic




					www.gov.ie
				




The reference is to those with income from employment of less than 200 Euro.  That is ambiguous.  I suspect that the self-employed will be left alone on the higher rate, but a strict reading of the information could suggest that they get the lower rate as they have less than 200 Euro income from employment.


----------



## Baby boomer (10 Jun 2020)

There's no mention of any self declaration of earnings simply that you will receive the appropriate banded payment from July onwards.  That implies they will use payroll data as reported to revenue for the weeks/months preceding the claim to sort recipients into the under/over 200 categories.

Obviously this is not available for the self-employed sole trader, who files an annual tax return, so one presumes they will just continue with the 350.


----------



## lughildanach (16 Jun 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> There's no mention of any self declaration of earnings simply that you will receive the appropriate banded payment from July onwards.  That implies they will use payroll data as reported to revenue for the weeks/months preceding the claim to sort recipients into the under/over 200 categories.
> 
> Obviously this is not available for the self-employed sole trader, who files an annual tax return, so one presumes they will just continue with the 350.



I expect you are right.  I think it would be too messy for them to start assessing the self-employed, particularly those who have not filed their 2019 tax returns yet.  The UK government took an average of the past three years self assessment, but it took them 3 months to set this up and arrange payment.


----------



## Baby boomer (16 Jun 2020)

I saw a report somewhere, that they would base the decision on 2018 tax returns for that very reason, with an appeal available to cover the scenario whereby earnings in January February were over 200, but the figure derives from the 2018 return was lower.


----------



## dereko1969 (16 Jun 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> I saw a report somewhere, that they would base the decision on 2018 tax returns for that very reason, with an appeal available to cover the scenario whereby earnings in January February were over 200, but the figure derives from the 2018 return was lower.


I think that was in the Business Post on Sunday. Yes, will be looking at latest returns. Will end up with a load of appeals in that event.


----------



## ATC110 (17 Jun 2020)

lughildanach said:


> I expect you are right.  I think it would be too messy for them to start assessing the self-employed, particularly those who have not filed their 2019 tax returns yet.  The UK government took an average of the past three years self assessment, but it took them 3 months to set this up and arrange payment.



I see the 2018 tax return will be used for assessing income for the self-employed. 

[broken link removed]

It doesn't specify how income will be assessed. Is it the "Amount of income or profits arising for this period" under Schedule D income? 

The DEASP do not know so I called Revenue, as they will be providing the income figures, but they're not contactable.


----------



## elacsaplau (17 Jun 2020)

lughildanach said:


> It will be interesting to see how they calculate the reference wage for seasonal workers or other workers with irregular hours



Any white smoke on this calc?


----------



## Baby boomer (17 Jun 2020)

I'm self employed now and in 2019 but I was PAYE in 2018.  My 2018 return showed a small amount of self-employed income (well under 200pw) but the total (PAYE plus self-employed plus rental income) was well over 200pw.  I haven't made a return for 2019.  

Wonder how they'll deal with that?


----------



## lughildanach (18 Jun 2020)

Yeah, that's a tricky one.  I would expect payment to be reduced to the 203 initially.  If you are in a position to provide accounts for 2019, they may be able to increase the payment, but we will have to wait to see what the procedure for reviews/appeals is.


----------



## lughildanach (18 Jun 2020)

elacsaplau said:


> Any white smoke on this calc?


Haven't seen anything yet.


----------



## ATC110 (2 Jul 2020)

Got a notification via my welfare.ie that my payment is being reduced to the lower rate. The DEASP has assessed my income after capital allowances have been deducted. 

There is an appeals process by post which needs to be made within 21 days.


----------



## nad (3 Jul 2020)

I believe all recipients need to re apply by completing an online questionaire by July 13th to maintain payment whether reduced or not.


----------



## lughildanach (6 Jul 2020)

ATC110 said:


> Got a notification via my welfare.ie that my payment is being reduced to the lower rate. The DEASP has assessed my income after capital allowances have been deducted.
> 
> There is an appeals process by post which needs to be made within 21 days.


Interesting.  Have they referred you to the Social Welfare Appeals Office in D'Olier Street, or is it to a review officer at local level?  How can someone effectively appeal when there are no statutory rules or clear guidelines on the subject.


----------



## ATC110 (13 Jul 2020)

lughildanach said:


> Interesting.  Have they referred you to the Social Welfare Appeals Office in D'Olier Street, or is it to a review officer at local level?  How can someone effectively appeal when there are no statutory rules or clear guidelines on the subject.



This was the message received through MyWelfare.ie on 2nd July 2020:

_This notification is to advise you that the rate of your Covid-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP) has been reviewed and is changing from €350.00 to €203.00 on 7th July 2020. This rate is based on your average weekly earnings of €<200 in 2018.


The COVID-19 PUP is an emergency payment of €350.00 introduced by the Government and is intended to support those workers whose employers cannot retain them or who are self-employed but whose trading income has ceased due to COVID-19.
The COVID-19 PUP was originally introduced on 15 March as an emergency payment for a six week period. The Government has recently decided to extend payment until 10th August 2020.


It has also been decided to introduce a number of modifications to the COVID-19 PUP from 29th June by introducing graduated payment rates aligned to prior earnings.
Your claim for COVID-19 PUP was reviewed in light of your prior earnings set out below

• Contributions Details from year: 2018
• Gross Earnings: €
• Contributions: 52
• Average Weekly Gross Earnings: €<200

Rate Band:
• From Amount: €0.00
• To Amount: €199.99

*Options available if you want to appeal*

If you believe that this decision is incorrect, you can request an internal review of the decision. You may also seek a formal review in which case it will be referred to a designated Review Officer. You may choose one or both options. You may do this by writing to us at the address below within the next 21 days. Please make sure to include all relevant details to support your application.

COVID 19 Unemployment Payments
PO Box 12896
Dublin 1_


----------



## lughildanach (17 Jul 2020)

Do you believe the decision is incorrect?   Is there any basis on which you could be assessed as having income of more than 200 Euro per week?  Either in 2018?  Or in 2019?  Or as at the end of March 2020?


----------



## ATC110 (18 Jul 2020)

lughildanach said:


> Do you believe the decision is incorrect?   Is there any basis on which you could be assessed as having income of more than 200 Euro per week?  Either in 2018?  Or in 2019?  Or as at the end of March 2020?



Yes, it is incorrect. My income was significantly in excess of €200 per week, which my tax return shows.

However, the DEASP have deducted capital allowances, which brings my income below the €200 per week threshold. 

I have appealed on the basis the assets which the capital allowances are calculated from still have to be paid for whether I'm working or not so it is my gross income which is the assessable amount. 

The 2019 tax return is not due to be submitted until October 31st 2020 and no income figures were requested for 2020.


----------



## lughildanach (19 Jul 2020)

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.


----------



## ATC110 (20 Jul 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.



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.


----------



## lughildanach (20 Jul 2020)

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.


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.


----------



## lughildanach (20 Jul 2020)

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.


----------



## ATC110 (20 Jul 2020)

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.



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


----------



## ATC110 (20 Jul 2020)

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.



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


----------



## lughildanach (21 Jul 2020)

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


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.


----------



## Shakti (27 Jul 2020)

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 PUPRerate@welfare.ie 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!


----------



## horse7 (29 Jul 2020)

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?


----------



## Saavy99 (29 Jul 2020)

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?




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.


----------



## horse7 (30 Jul 2020)

Thanks for your help.


----------



## ATC110 (30 Jul 2020)

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?


----------

