HMRC Is Shite

HMRC Is Shite
Dedicated to the taxpayers of Britain, and the employees of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), who have to endure the monumental shambles that is HMRC.

Thursday, 18 March 2010

Sian Williams In Naked Protest


Snort!

The BBC report that their very own Breakfast host Sian Williams has had a tax claim for clothes and hairstyling rejected by a tribunal.

Williams' legal team said that the items should be tax deductible because it was part of her job to look good on screen.

They added she "would be prepared to read the news without clothes" and only wore them because it was "required".

The case went to tribunal at the behest of her accountant, who wanted to test the rules

Quite correctly, as every trainee accountant knows, HMRC have applied the rule that only expenses "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred" can be deducted from income.

Memory fades as to the case, but a lawyer tried this argument re the cost of her court clothes when I was still in short trousers; she lost. The judge remarked that she would still need to wear clothes for decency.

Any bets as to whether Sian will go ahead with her naked tax protest?

Tax does have to be taxing.

Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX and VAT Investigations

What is TAXWISE?

TAXWISE is a tax-fee protection service that will pay up to £75,000 towards your accountant's fees in the event of an HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry or dispute.

To find out more, please use this link Taxwise

Tax Investigation for Dummies, by Nick Morgan, provides a good and easy to read guide for anyone caught up in an HMRC tax investigation. A must read for any Self Assessment taxpayer.

Click the link to read about: Tax Investigation for Dummies

HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

10 comments:

  1. Already been done - see Whoops Apocalypse (the TV series). However, the implication there was that the nudity was mandatory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh yes! Mallalieu v Drummond (1983)! It's everyone's favourite case, just after Rutledge. (Isn't she now Baroness Mallalieu? Does she claim for ermine?)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just a headline grabbing stunt. Doomed from the start. The things people do and say to get in the papers!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I, for one, would find the news a lot more interesting if she did strip!

    ReplyDelete
  5. This wholly necessary exclusively thing also applied to our great and good's expenses claims - for things like... a duck house.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry, does everyone else not buy their own clothes for work

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks 19 March 2010 15:17 for mentioning duck houses. It reminded me that I need to start looking at doing my year end.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yet another silly rule. Why will we never get rational tax law?

    It should not be relevant whether, in theory, something COULD be worn for other purposes but whether it actually is. If someone has to buy things especially for work that they do not wear otherwise it should be allowable.

    This is not just the normal situation that applies to most of us of just looking presentable at work but a quite expectional expense due to the nature of the job.

    One COULD use printer paper for other purposes, does that mean printer paper brought for a business is not allowable? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wonder if the accountant who advised her will now return a substantial portion of his fees, as he must,surely,have known this would fail........Hmmmmmmm seems like HMRC are not alone in some pretty dubious working practices......

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wear my work clothes for 'leisure' time

    ReplyDelete