Getting RTI right when paying staff early over Christmas
The latest Employer Bulletin is a timely reminder of the RTI reporting changes in December. What do employers need to get right?

The background
Lots of employers routinely pay employees earlier than their contractual payment date in the month of December. Unless they are aware of how their payroll software populates this change of date in the full payment submission (FPS) this can cause problems for monthly paid employees who are in receipt of Universal Credit (UC) and have an award period end date close to their contractual payment date.
Case study
An employee is normally paid on 25th of the month, so clearly cannot be paid on Christmas Day as this is a bank holiday. It is the employer’s custom and practice to bring forward payday to mid-December, so employees will be paid on the 18th. If the employer uses the earlier pay date of the 18th in Field 43 of the FPS, it is quite likely that a number of employees will have earnings data for both November and December reported to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for the same UC award period, which will lead to a significant reduction in their benefit payment.
Permanent easement
To solve this problem HMRC introduced a permanent easement for PAYE reporting in 2019 that applies to the month of December only. In the above case study it is vital that the employer is aware how to populate Field 43 in their FPS with the normal contractual payment date of 25 December, not the actual payment date of 18 December. For the month of December only the FPS reporting deadline is also the contractual payment date of the 25th. For the remainder of the year the FPS must be reported by midnight on the actual payment date, even though the date in Field 43 must always be the contractual payment date, even if payment is brought forward due to the contractual date falling at a weekend or bank holiday.
Following a Court of Appeal judgment the UC legislation was amended in November 2020 to require the DWP to reallocate earnings from an incorrectly brought forward payment date to the award period that the earnings should have been in respect of.
Related Articles
-
Income sharing trouble for separated couple
After a couple separated one spouse received income from letting the property she jointly owned with her estranged spouse. HMRC taxed all the income on her. Was it right to do so or should her spouse have been taxed on half the income?
-
How to handle workers aiming to "Slide Away" to an Oasis Concert
The Oasis Live ’25 UK reunion tour starts in Cardiff on 4 July 2025 and concludes in London on 28 September 2025. With ticketless fans keen on obtaining last-minute tickets and ticketed fans eager to get to the gig for when the gates open, this could have an impact on staff productivity and timekeeping. How can you tackle these issues?
-
Is getting your business to pay tax efficient?
You were recently involved in an online discussion about the tax consequences of putting the cost of a celebratory meal for the business owners and staff through the firm’s books. Will doing so save or increase tax overall?