Short and important postscript on 'casual' workers and the CJRS. A well known financial journalist raised the questions flagged in my Opinion with HMRC and received some responses which will raise a wry smile with lawyers but should help those engaging casual workers. THREAD.
The first issue was whether pay to casual workers qualifies at all. As a matter of law, I don't think it does. HMRC says they disagree on the law - fair enough - but more importantly that 'customers' only need to work from the guidance. 
The second issue was whether there is a bear trap for engagers of casual labour who have no financial incentive to apply the scheme: inadvertently underpay workers and you lose all rights to reimbursement; overpay and you can't recover the overpayment.
HMRC says (my summary, but I hope it's fair) 'yes there is that problem but just follow our online tools and it'll all be fine.'
These answers do assist somewhat. It is notoriously difficult to require HMRC to apply their guidance rather than the law - and probably rightly so. But these strong statements will make that task rather easier in these exceptional circumstances.
Where does that leave us? I guess I have three observations. The first is: HMRC's answers don't seem to me to quite engage with the particular sensitivities of those engaging casual labour. For them, applying the CJRS is a massive bet from which they can't win but can only lose.
The second is, this stuff could be cleared up by an amendment to the Treasury Direction to say: an engager of 'casuals' who took proper care and advice and did not profit from applying the CJRS will not lose out. Very likely that the only thing preventing that amendment is pride.
The third is, this really is a huge problem. There are two million on zero hours contracts alone. Other affected workers might double this number? There are the most vulnerable people in the workplace. It is really, really rubbish that their plight is not taken seriously.
Background here waitingfortax.com/2020/04/18/doe…
It is difficult to see how HMRC's explanation for what 7.4(b) is designed to do can be right where this is *exactly* what 7.4(a) and 7.5 are designed to do.
