Blogger
Share this content
0
16
5234

IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN SOMEBODY CLAIM FOR CLOTHING

I have a new client who is a glamour model. I am looking through her expensesto see what she can claim against her income. Most of the expenses fall foul of the wholly and exclusively.

The items I am looking at include:

Underwear

Make up

Bottled fake tan

Hair extensions.

All of these expenses are only incurred because of my client's occupation, however would HMRC accept them or would they in certain circumstances or if particular arguments were used.

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

More info needed really

On the underwear. Why is she buying them.  If they're "nude knickers" that models use, their purpose is modesty/common decency and they will fail the test effectively impose by Mallalieu v Drummond.

Make up is quite probably allowable.  If she maintains separate stocks of make up for work and personal use.  Which is quite likely, since bolder colours, etc are likely to be used for work purposes.  Speak to your client and construct your arguments/basis for allowing it.  I've known makeup to be claimed by female actors (oh those halcyon days when we were still allowed to call them actresses) and other entertainers, not to mention male ones!.

Your arguments might even cover the fake tan.  Whilst she may have a healthy colour and be happy with it in real life, she's likely to look washed out on camera without the fake tan.

Hair extensions probably do have duality of purpose because they will stay in when she's not working

Thanks (1)

HI Steve

Thanks for your reply.

The hair extensions do come out and are only used when working. The underwear is used for puposes of appearance and sex appeal.The underwear is clearly bought for her modelling work. The purpse is certainly not common decency or modesty. To be be blunt modesty is something that I think in this case is neither desired or encouraged. My client's main client is a provider of adult services. The underwear is more of a costume rather than clothing

 

 

Thanks (0)

Ah, in that case

Yes. I'd see the underwear as more of a prop, and I think you've got a good case for the hair extensions too.  It's not quite the same thing, but there are some useful links in this thread.

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/anyanswers/question/accounting-escorts

EDIT: Actually, looking at the thread, the useful link is quite hard to find.  It refers to this http://www.taxrelief4escorts.co.uk/category/taxbasics/income-expenses/

Thanks (0)

Is she on day time TV on Sky?

I might be watching her.  Those are nice undies.

Thanks (1)

Steve

Thanks for your replyandlink, they were both very helpful

Thanks (0)

Look at HMRC guidance here:

Look at the guidance here:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM50160.htm

They can claim a bit more than your average self-employed person.

Thanks (0)

Duality of purpose

In passing, the "duality of purpose" argument does not apply when you can identify a proportion of an expense that relates to business use (s34(2) ITTOIA 2005)

In your case (and specifically for a glamour model) the case for a tax deduction it is pretty much cut and dried because under the basic rule in s34 the expenses are incurred wholly and exclusively for business - so any private use would be incidental and disregarded.

Virtual tax support for accountants: www.rossmartin.co.uk

Thanks (0)

Actually Nichola

Nichola Ross Martin wrote:

In passing, the "duality of purpose" argument does not apply when you can identify a proportion of an expense that relates to business use (s34(2) ITTOIA 2005)

In your case (and specifically for a glamour model) the case for a tax deduction it is pretty much cut and dried because under the basic rule in s34 the expenses are incurred wholly and necessarily for business - so any private use would be incidental and disregarded.

Virtual tax support for accountants: www.rossmartin.co.uk

You mean wholly and exclusively.  Usual practice when quoting legislation is to make a concerted effort to get it right.

The concept of of the back 90% of her knickers being for business use and the front 10% is private is rather titivating my grey matter though.

Thanks (1)

@Steve

I think that's the most entertaining link I've seen on AWeb.  If only I had the time to browse (or breathe).

 

Thanks (0)

I hope she is paying you in kind!

Thanks (0)

Clearly? - The GoodEnglish Professor writes:

Nice and amusing points.

I see from the use of that un-necessary word "clearly" (leave it out, and it still makes sense), that we are dealing with "voyeurism" here.  OK so it's a French word, and I'm the GoodEnglish Professor.

Thanks (0)

Martin...

... or should I use the French word cretin?

The word clearly appears only three times in this thread and only twice is it unnecessary.  Both of those occasions occur in your post.

The fact that a phrase "still makes sense" when a word is omitted doesn't make the word unnecessary.  It is only unnecessary if the meaning isn't altered when it's omitted.  When the OP uses the word, it clearly (or demonstrably) changes the meaning of the phrase.

Your witty double-entendre though was titilating.

Thanks (1)

Support (hosiery?)

George, I am grateful for your "support."

Keep counting

Thanks (0)

Actually George

I was thinking that the type of knickers claimed for would do anything but preserve modesty and certainly wouldn't keep the cold out. So they would pass the basic s34 test for business use, and you would not have any of the duality problems of Mallalieu v Drummond because there the private benefit is so scanty.

There would be no need to apportion the expenditure either. If you did try that you would then found that you had exposed yourself and admitted duality, so you would fail on that part because, as you say you cannot apportion a pair of knickers.

Thanks (0)

Model

Post some pictures of her and then I'm sure we'll be able to advise you better ;-)

Thanks (0)

In a twist?

Sounds like some people are getting their knickers in a twist over this!

Chris

Thanks (0)