Reply To: Class 2 Self-Employed

#286931
petedavies
Participant

Sadly, I think the hybrid theory suggested by Peter Barker is correct.

Going back to 912/2012 “it is plain that to simply use the previous year’s earnings without any allowance for the downturn or upturn is the antithesis of estimating the earnings accurately”.

Although this related to a change in income, the same logic must, surely, apply to any other significant change. The removal of the requirement to pay Class 2 is not a change in the rate so cannot be ignored for the purposes of Reg 34.

We are required to estimate current year’s income based on what was earned during a historic period. If one of the assumptions on which that estimate is based is demonstrably and significantly wrong, my view is we must amend to correct, or at least mitigate, that aspect of the calculation.