An Employer Alignment Submission (EAS) was a one-time UK payroll filing used during the introduction of Real Time Information (RTI) to match an employer’s payroll records with records held by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). It applied mainly to employers with 250 or more employees as they moved to reporting pay and deductions through the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system. The employer sent identifying details for people on its payroll so HMRC could compare those records with its own and follow up on discrepancies. After that initial alignment, the employer used routine RTI submissions rather than sending another EAS. EAS is a historical term, not a current filing requirement, and it is distinct from a general review of HR or employment compliance.
Table of Contents
- Why Was Eas Used During the Rti Rollout?
- What Information and Workers Did the Submission Cover?
- How Did Eas Differ from Routine Rti Reporting?
- Is Eas Still Required?
- How Is Eas Different from an HR Audit or Us Tax Filing?
- Why Does Eas Matter to Contingent Workforce Payroll?
Why Was Eas Used During the Rti Rollout?
Before RTI, HMRC and an employer could hold different details for the same employment record. The EAS provided a separate opportunity to match records before the employer began routine reporting. HMRC’s historical EAS guidance says employers with 250 or more employees used the submission through the 2013-14 tax year. Employers with fewer than 250 employees generally had their records aligned through their first Full Payment Submission (FPS) instead.
The threshold related to the employer’s PAYE payroll during a specific transition to RTI. It did not mean that only large employers had to report payroll information, nor did it establish a permanent size-based exemption from ordinary PAYE reporting. EAS was a migration step for the records HMRC needed to connect with its systems. It was not a recurring workforce review or a general assessment of whether an organization followed employment rules.
What Information and Workers Did the Submission Cover?
The submission contained details HMRC could use to identify and match payroll records. These included an employee’s name and National Insurance number as well as their payroll ID. It also included information such as the person’s address, date of birth and tax code. The aim was to associate the employer’s record with the corresponding record in HMRC’s National Insurance and PAYE Service system.
The population was broader than the people paid in a single pay period. HMRC describes the EAS as covering all employees on the employer’s payroll, including people who were not liable for tax or National Insurance contributions. That could include a person who had left during the tax year or someone who had not received pay in the particular period being prepared. This is why the alignment exercise depended on checking payroll records rather than simply exporting the latest pay run.
How Did Eas Differ from Routine Rti Reporting?
EAS helped establish which employment records belonged to the employer’s PAYE scheme. HMRC compared the submitted details with its own records and could ask the employer for additional information where a discrepancy arose. Once the records were aligned, the employer proceeded with the routine reporting process.
The FPS served a different purpose: employers use it to report payments and deductions each time they pay employees. The HMRC explanation of RTI submission types describes the FPS as the main submission for reporting who was paid and the details of the payment and deductions. In other words, alignment did not replace payment reporting. For example, a person who had left earlier in the tax year might still appear in the alignment population even if they received no payment in the current run. The record-matching task and the report of an actual payment had different jobs.
Is Eas Still Required?
No. EAS was withdrawn and is not a current RTI filing. HMRC’s guidance records the historical alignment process, while a 2017 notice published by the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals reported that EAS was removed from HMRC’s production environment on October 16, 2017. The notice said submissions made after that date would not be processed.
Current UK PAYE reporting uses the applicable RTI submissions. Employers generally report employee pay and deductions in an FPS on or before payday, subject to exceptions. HMRC’s current payroll reporting guidance explains the information used for an FPS and an Employer Payment Summary. An old checklist or software note that says to send an EAS should therefore be treated as historical material and checked against current HMRC instructions. It should not be mistaken for an additional step in today’s payroll process.
How Is Eas Different from an HR Audit or Us Tax Filing?
Despite the word “alignment,” EAS was not an audit of HR policies, employee records as a whole or legal compliance. Its scope was narrower: matching payroll employment records held by an employer with HMRC’s records during the RTI transition. Completing the submission did not certify that every employment practice was compliant. A human resource audit is a separate kind of review that may examine documentation or internal processes.
EAS was also a UK PAYE term, not a US federal payroll return. US employers report federal employment taxes through the forms that apply to their circumstances. For example, the IRS explains that Form 941 is generally used to report wages and federal income tax, Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld or owed. Some employers have a different filing requirement. The IRS overview of Forms 941 and 944 describes those distinctions. An archived reference to EAS should not be used as a substitute for US or state payroll guidance.
Why Does Eas Matter to Contingent Workforce Payroll?
EAS is mainly relevant to contingent workforce teams when they encounter historical UK payroll records or procedures. The key practical question is which entity ran the PAYE payroll and therefore held the records submitted for alignment. A client’s assignment roster may not be the same as the payroll population of the entity employing and paying the worker. Keeping those records distinct can help teams understand which organization’s historical payroll documentation they are reviewing.
Where an Employer of Record (EOR) arrangement is involved, identify the entity responsible for the employment payroll before interpreting an old EAS reference. That helps distinguish the client’s assignment information from the employer’s payroll records. For present-day coordination, the relevant work is supporting accurate current payroll reporting, not recreating a retired EAS step. If the reference appears in an archived procedure, confirm its date and payroll context before deciding whether any action remains necessary.
