Clothing expenses.


T

Tim

You'd have thought so.


"Ronald Raygun" wrote
You may well ask.
I did!!

Well, Simon and Martin have stated in the other thread that the
cure *isn't* allowable, so perhaps they can tell us why there's a
difference between prevention & cure of the same (work) hazard?
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald Raygun

Tim said:
Well, Simon and Martin have stated in the other thread that the
cure *isn't* allowable, so perhaps they can tell us why there's a
difference between prevention & cure of the same (work) hazard?
Well, if to be taxed is "bad", and for a deduction to be allowed is
"good" (i.e. better than bad), as far as the taxpayer is concerned,
then it can be said that the rule just reinforces the old adage.
 
T

Tim

Tim said:
Well, if to be taxed is "bad", and for a deduction to be allowed is
"good" (i.e. better than bad), as far as the taxpayer is concerned,
then it can be said that the rule just reinforces the old adage.
Tee hee!
 
P

Peter Saxton

Your assertion seems to be contradicted by BIM47820 (Specific deductions:
use of home: specific expenses):

"
Telephone

The cost of business calls is allowable. Also allow a proportion of the line
rental (based on the ratio of business use to total use). This proportion
should reflect all aspects of use, including incoming calls, though in most
cases reference to itemised outgoing calls will provide a reasonable and
acceptable measure.

Care should be taken and a flexible approach adopted when considering the
level of apportioned business expenditure, relating to all inclusive
packages offered by telephone and broadband providers.
"
HMRC recently changed their view. I think Simon was setting out the
old view.
 
S

Simon

Ronald Raygun said:
In particular, it seems absurd that where an injury requiring medical
treatment is sustained at work by an employee in circumstances where
the employer is found to be liable (e.g. negligence through inadequate
supervision or guidance), that an employee's rights should be less, by
reason of his employment, than if he were an ordinary member of the
public. It seems that an employee's medical expenses would be taxable
but an OMP's would not.

Compare a timber merchant's employee dropping a plank of wood on his foot
with dropping it on a customer's foot.
Compare also the merchant himself (self-employed) dropping the plank
on his own foot, with dropping it on his employee's.
You are confusing compensation from neglect with medical treatment.
 
S

Simon

Ronald Raygun said:
Your assertion seems to be contradicted by BIM47820 (Specific deductions:
use of home: specific expenses):

"
Telephone

The cost of business calls is allowable. Also allow a proportion of the
line
rental (based on the ratio of business use to total use). This proportion
should reflect all aspects of use, including incoming calls, though in
most
cases reference to itemised outgoing calls will provide a reasonable and
acceptable measure.

Care should be taken and a flexible approach adopted when considering the
level of apportioned business expenditure, relating to all inclusive
packages offered by telephone and broadband providers.
"


On the other hand, in the context of employment, which you perhaps had
in mind, we see a contradicting guidance, set out e.g. in EIM32940
(Other expenses - telephone charges), where it states that "Normally,
no deduction should be permitted for any part of the rental or standing
charge for a telephone installed at the employee's home."

Is it the "necessarily" bit, do you think, which makes the employment
case stricter than the self-employed case? It doesn't mention that in
the text, nor does it seem likely. If, however, it turns entirely on
the interpretation of "exclusively", one would have thought that in
schedule D and E contexts the same word would have the same meaning,
and binding court decisions on its interpretation in one context would
binding in the other context also.

Or do you think BIM47820 is itself mistaken? I don't think so, because
there ought to be a consistent approach taken to what is and what is not
apportionable on the one hand and inextricably inseparable on the other.

Perhaps this boundary is fluid. Take cars, for instance, where the AMAP
option for business mileage is not taken, but where instead the actual
whole running costs of the car (fuel, insurance, repairs, finance, etc,
and also capital allowances) are added and a mileage based proportion of
the sum is attributed to the business, despite the fact that it could be
argued that the standing costs are inherently dual and no specific
identifiable part of them can be attributed exclusively to business use,
and yet their apportionment is allowed on the same basis as those costs
which clearly are attributable exclusively to the business (fuel, wear and
tear). It is logical, therefore, that the standing charges of a telephone
line, being a "gray" part of the overall cost of the phone service, in
the exact same way as the standing costs of a car are a "gray" part of the
overall cost of having and using the car, should be similarly capable of
being apportioned.
BIM47820 is for a sole trader and I was referring to an employed earner. The
rules are different.
 
F

Fredxx

Ronald Raygun said:
In particular, it seems absurd that where an injury requiring medical
treatment is sustained at work by an employee in circumstances where
the employer is found to be liable (e.g. negligence through inadequate
supervision or guidance), that an employee's rights should be less, by
reason of his employment, than if he were an ordinary member of the
public. It seems that an employee's medical expenses would be taxable
but an OMP's would not.

Compare a timber merchant's employee dropping a plank of wood on his foot
with dropping it on a customer's foot.
Compare also the merchant himself (self-employed) dropping the plank
on his own foot, with dropping it on his employee's.
I guess he can't claim private medical treatment for himself, but if he was
employed, by an umbrella company or otherwise, couldn't he take out a civil
action against his company, and not contest it? Wouldn't this
"compensation" be tax deductible?
 
S

Simon

Fredxx said:
I guess he can't claim private medical treatment for himself, but if he
was employed, by an umbrella company or otherwise, couldn't he take out a
civil action against his company, and not contest it? Wouldn't this
"compensation" be tax deductible?
And of course, HMRC would not see though that!
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Simon said:
And of course, HMRC would not see though that!
There isn't really any disguise here to see through. The compensation
payment would probably be a deductible expense as far as the company is
concerned, but that doesn't stop it being taxable on the employee.
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Simon

Ronald Raygun said:
There isn't really any disguise here to see through. The compensation
payment would probably be a deductible expense as far as the company is
concerned, but that doesn't stop it being taxable on the employee.
If it were truly compensation, it would not be taxable. However, it would
most likely be viewed as an extraction of a private expense. so it might not
be earnings but still have the effect of being earnings unless the
individual had sufficient invested in the company to cover this.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top