HMRC to claw back unneeded aid from businesses
Businesses that claimed money they didn’t need face trouble if they are found to have breached the schemes' terms.
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
Twice daily
MoneyWeek
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Four times a week
Look After My Bills
Sign up to our free money-saving newsletter, filled with the latest news and expert advice to help you find the best tips and deals for managing your bills. Start saving today!
Businesses judged to have breached the terms of government rescue schemes during the Covid-19 pandemic could face unprecedented demands for tax penalties under a planned crackdown – and even criminal prosecution. Firms are being warned to be meticulous about record-keeping amid increasing fears that HM Revenue & Customs will aggressively claw back financial support.
HMRC will initially focus on the Job Retention Scheme (JRS), through which the state has picked up the wage costs of millions of workers furloughed by their employers, and the Self Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS), which has so far offered grants of up to £7,500 to self-employed workers hit by crisis.
New legislation due to come into force next month will give businesses 30 days to declare any mistakes they have made when applying for JRS or SEISS support. They will then be required to repay the cash they have received.
MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Where HMRC suspects businesses were not entitled to support, it will investigate, with firms required to prove they were eligible. Unless they do so, HMRC is likely to demand a 100% tax charge on the money and will prosecute businesses that do not pay.
Fleecing the taxpayer
The tough approach comes amid concern that some firms have taken unfair advantage of the JRS and the SEISS, which have so far cost the taxpayer almost £27bn. There have been some examples of flagrant breaches, such as employers asking furloughed staff to work. But there have also been examples of businesses seeking financial support even though they haven’t been damaged by the crisis.
The legislation enabling HMRC to charge tax at 100% signals a determination by the government to recoup money paid out unnecessarily. The mechanism provides officials with a rapid route to recovery that effectively uses HMRC’s existing powers rather than requiring new laws.
Most businesses applying for financial support will have acted with integrity. But it is crucial to keep records of the application process and supporting evidence. For the JRS, for example, this would include evidence that employees would have continued to work had it not been for Covid-19; SEISS applicants must show they suffered financial disadvantage because of the virus and needed support.
Review record-keeping and documentation now, well in advance of any inquiry from HMRC. Some businesses may find they have not needed all of the support they anticipated would be required. In that case, consider paying it back before HMRC launches an investigation.
A loan to help you bounce back
Businesses that have borrowed relatively modest sums through the government-backed Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) could dramatically reduce their interest costs by switching to the Bounce Back loans facility.
Ministers launched the Bounce Back scheme several weeks into the Covid-19 crisis, responding to criticisms that smaller businesses were struggling to access cash through CBILS. By then, however, many businesses had secured finance through the original scheme.
Both schemes are administered through the banks, with the state underwriting the loans. Crucially, however, Bounce Back loans come with an interest rate set by the government at 2.5% a year, while with CBILS, lenders set their own rates; many are charging 6% a year or more.
The maximum Bounce Back loan is £50,000, so for businesses that have borrowed less than this from CBILS, it makes sense to switch. The Bounce Back loan scheme isn’t open to businesses that have already secured finance from CBILS, but there is an exception for firms borrowing in order to pay off a CBILS loan in full. Your bank should be able to help you refinance.
The government has pledged to keep the Bounce Back loan scheme open for applications until 4 November. Both Bounce Back loans and CBILS carry no interest charges or fees in year one, so for businesses confident about repaying CBILS there may be no need to switch. But for any business that expects to begin incurring interest, moving scheme makes sense. On the maximum £50,000 Bounce Back loan, interest charges will cost £1,250 a year from year two onwards. Assuming an interest rate of 6%, the same loan from CBILS will cost £3,000 a year to service.
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.

David Prosser is a regular MoneyWeek columnist, writing on small business and entrepreneurship, as well as pensions and other forms of tax-efficient savings and investments. David has been a financial journalist for almost 30 years, specialising initially in personal finance, and then in broader business coverage. He has worked for national newspaper groups including The Financial Times, The Guardian and Observer, Express Newspapers and, most recently, The Independent, where he served for more than three years as business editor.
-
How a ‘great view’ from your home can boost its value by 35%A house that comes with a picturesque backdrop could add tens of thousands of pounds to its asking price – but how does each region compare?
-
What is a care fees annuity and how much does it cost?How we will be cared for in our later years – and how much we are willing to pay for it – are conversations best had as early as possible. One option to cover the cost is a care fees annuity. We look at the pros and cons.
-
"Botched" Brexit: should Britain rejoin the EU?Brexit did not go perfectly nor disastrously. It’s not worth continuing the fight over the issue, says Julian Jessop
-
'AI is the real deal – it will change our world in more ways than we can imagine'Interview Rob Arnott of Research Affiliates talks to Andrew Van Sickle about the AI bubble, the impact of tariffs on inflation and the outlook for gold and China
-
Tony Blair's terrible legacy sees Britain still sufferingOpinion Max King highlights ten ways in which Tony Blair's government sowed the seeds of Britain’s subsequent poor performance and many of its current problems
-
How a dovish Federal Reserve could affect youTrump’s pick for the US Federal Reserve is not so much of a yes-man as his rival, but interest rates will still come down quickly, says Cris Sholto Heaton
-
New Federal Reserve chair Kevin Warsh has his work cut outOpinion Kevin Warsh must make it clear that he, not Trump, is in charge at the Fed. If he doesn't, the US dollar and Treasury bills sell-off will start all over again
-
How Canada's Mark Carney is taking on Donald TrumpCanada has been in Donald Trump’s crosshairs ever since he took power and, under PM Mark Carney, is seeking strategies to cope and thrive. How’s he doing?
-
Rachel Reeves is rediscovering the Laffer curveOpinion If you keep raising taxes, at some point, you start to bring in less revenue. Rachel Reeves has shown the way, says Matthew Lynn
-
The enshittification of the internet and what it means for usWhy do transformative digital technologies start out as useful tools but then gradually get worse and worse? There is a reason for it – but is there a way out?