HMRC doubles up on SEISS tax
HMRC’s latest guidance on Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) payments warns that some taxpayers may be taxed on them twice. What steps are required to prevent this?

HMRC says that many of the 2020/21 self-assessment tax returns it’s received either include entries for SEISS payments that don’t match the figures it has on record or show nothing at all. As a result, it’s automatically amending those returns and sending out corrected tax calculations.
Taxpayers should of course check HMRC’s amended figures to make sure they reflect only the total of the first, second or third SEISS grants received on or before 5 April 2021. But that’s not all. They should also check that theyreported the SEISS payments in the right box on the tax return. HMRC’s latest guidance instructs where the payments should be shown.
If figures have been entered in the wrong place HMRC will assume the taxpayer hasn’t declared the payments at all. It will automatically add them which will result in the individual being taxed twice on the SEISS payments. To avoid this double taxation, an amended tax return should be submitted, reporting the SEISS figures in the right place and removing them from the part of the tax return where they were originally included.
Related Topics
-
Capital gains tax break for job-related accommodation
You’re in the process of selling a property that you bought as your home but because of your job have never lived in. You’ve been told that you’ll have to pay tax on any gain you make, but might a special relief get you off the hook?
-
Should you revoke your 20-year-old option?
Your business has let out a building to a tenant and it is now just over 20 years since you opted to tax the property with HMRC. Should you revoke it so that your tenant no longer needs to pay VAT?
-
Chip shop owner fined £40k for hiring illegal worker
A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been left in shock after being fined £40,000 for allegedly employing someone who didn’t have the right to work in the UK, even though he conducted a right to work check. Where did this employer go wrong and what can you learn from it?