P45 Help Needed Please

LucyJ

Hello, I wonder if anyone can help me, if an employee left an employer on the 31st March 2010 and was only paid up to that date but didn't physically receive his pay until 15th April 2010, should the P45 show the pay up to the date he left i.e. in the 2009/2010 year or should he receive a P45 showing the payment he received in April 2010 (2010/2011 year)?

Thanks.

T.C.

I would assume the date he left should have been the payment date. It might be worth checking the actual last day of employment, maybe there was some holiday tagged on the end??

A-Vic

LucyJ wrote: »

Hello, I wonder if anyone can help me, if an employee left an employer on the 31st March 2010 and was only paid up to that date but didn't physically receive his pay until 15th April 2010, should the P45 show the pay up to the date he left i.e. in the 2009/2010 year or should he receive a P45 showing the payment he received in April 2010 (2010/2011 year)?

Thanks.

Yopu should have a leaving date and a date of issue

Monsoon

If his last day was 31st March then I'd say he left in the old tax year not the new one.

LucyJ

Thanks for all your replies :-)

payrollpro

Lucy,

The person may have left on 31 March, so the date of leaving must be shown as this but the final payment was made in the new tax year so it becomes a bit of a problem. Income tax is fine, it is the new year but NIC's may be problematic. If this was a normal payment, i.e. a late one but on the normal pay day for April the NIC is the same basis as used in March but if the payment is out of sequence then technically it is calculated on the weekly basis, irrespective of the basis used previously.

Payrollpro

LucyJ

Thank you payrollpro :-)

SSamuel2007

HI,

If his last working day or paid holiday day was 31st March 2010 then its ok to put it all in 2009/2010.

I assume he was just paid on the next bacs/cheque run and HMRC wouldn't question it.

HMRC are very undestanding on things like this as it is swings and roundabouts.They may have lost out on NI but he probably paid tax at 20% but if you had split it over into 2010/11 they may not have been any tax paid.

Hope this helps.

Sam