For example, if a worker has three months` notice, the employer may decide that he wants to be the last day of work today – but he pays your salary for three months instead of that layoff, even if you no longer physically come to work. In recent times, we have encountered a growing number of more cautious employers who are not willing to rely on the absence of a PILON clause to pay for a redundancy paid. In addition, it has become more common for large employers to agree with HMRC to always tax tax notice payments paid in place of tax notices – which guarantees maximum income for the government. As of April 6, 2018, it is no longer permissible to make PILONs tax-exempt, with the government choosing to tax the basic salary that an employee would have earned if he had worked his full notice. This provision applies regardless of whether the employment contract contains a PILON clause. By entering into a valid transaction agreement, an employee agrees to give up certain legal rights as a rule in exchange for severance pay or a package. The main effect of the agreement is that an employment tribunal can no longer hear the rights listed in the agreement and that a worker is excluded from the exercise of those rights. Depending on the contractual terms, it may also prevent a worker from asserting contractual rights and/or common law claims. In the absence of an agreement for PILON, the tax should not be deducted unless the employer`s automatic practice is to make PILONs or if the PILON exceeds $30,000 when combined with another allowance. One of the problems we often have is that an employer, whether or not he has the right to make a PILON tax-exempt, makes the payment tax-exempt under a transaction contract and asks the worker for tax compensation to cover the risk if HMRC does so years later. Sometimes an employee takes that risk. However, such compensation will be much lower in the future if the transaction contract does not contain the correct tax position.

If the agreement does not meet these minimum legal requirements, it is not valid and a worker may continue to claim a claim against his employer, when he is likely to have to repay the funds received, or they are deducted from any compensation granted to the worker.