Final word on this in the meantime. As I said at the outset, doubt it'll be more than a box-ticking exercise for the vast majority, but if HMRC ask you to evidence that you've lost business due to Covid-19 then claiming that you know some HMRC employees or saying that they're 'bonkers' to ask the question just wouldn't cut the mustard
That's not how it works. The vast majority of the time HMRC just rubber-stamp tax returns etc, but if they start asking questions, and ask you to jump, you just reply 'How high?'
I've worked as a tax practitioner (back when HMRC was split between the Inland Revenue and HM Customs & Excise), so know slightly more than most about how it all works.
I've also known people in the trade who've been subject to formal HMRC investigations (as I'm sure many on here will). It ain't a pretty sight, either in terms of personal stress or the resultant tax bill.
In fact every year my accountant asks me to take out insurance against the possibility of an HMRC investigation, but I've never bothered
(Of course, if you're honest then it shouldn't be a problem in terms of having to pay more tax, but I suspect still a very worrying and stressful experience, which could go on for weeks and months.)
Anyway, my point about taking note of press articles etc in terms of evidence was little more than a throwaway line for my own benefit - anyone else can just ignore me if they want.
It's not *me* nor the readers on here that you might have to convince, nor anyone else in the trade, all of whom know the score.
It's a faceless individual in an office somewhere, who may be on the lookout for fraud, or are given a quota or whatever to provide evidence or investigate further.
StuartW wrote:
And, for example, if you take the headline and strapline to the Disco Dave piece at face value then he wouldn't be eligible for the grant, in my opinion. Anyone else agree or disagree?
Leeds' 'Disco Dave' Uber driver forced to quit as fares plummet to just £3 a day
Yasar Aziz, who is known to customers as 'Disco Dave', has regretfully had to give up being a taxi driver due to the coronavirus pandemic
One of the conditions for the grant is that you "intend to continue to trade in the tax year 2020-21".
Looking at that headline (and strapline below), it could be viewed as saying that Dave has given up for good before the 2020-21 tax year (which started a few days ago on 6 April, thus a few days after the article), so he wouldn't be eligible for the grant.
Of course, I suspect that Dave's intention *is* to resume driving after it's all over, but it's another potential trap that could catch out the unwary.
I mean, I'm an independent HC driver. The car is sitting outside, and I could go out to work in the next five minutes if I wanted to. And I'm not doing another job in the meantime.
But suppose you were tied to an office, have handed your radio back in, handed the car back to whoever's providing it, and taken another job.
As I said, unlikely that many drivers would be caught out by this if they genuinely intend starting back in the trade, but you never know...
The chap in Inverness may be a tad cynical and opportunistic, but he used the term 'mothballed' in terms of his cars, which is probably bang on in terms of claiming the grant. (A bit like the other word of the moment - 'furloughed' - which I'd never heard of before all this kicked off. But it's similar to 'mothballed', although it's more about employees than the self-employed.)