Gym Membership for Self Employed Actor

Gym Membership for Self Employed Actor

Didn't find your answer?

I'm sure this is a very simple question to answer, but just want to check consensus to be absolutely sure.  Self employed actor, pays for gym membership as parts he auditions for and gets require him to work out.  This is tax deductible on his SA return, correct?

Replies (5)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By George Attazder
11th Jul 2012 12:06

I imagine...

... that the parts that he auditions for require him to look reasonably well nourished as well, which would also make the food that he eats tax deductible?

Can you show (to a tribunal) that he wouldn't have a gym membership, but for the requirements of his work? Because HMRC (if and when they become aware), will most certainly seek to play the duality of purpose card. See Caillebotte v Quinn in BIM37920.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By bluesian1210
11th Jul 2012 12:22

Thank you George.  The parts he's been auditioning for recently are that for a soldier, so he's had to work out to get a soldier's physique where he did not do so before.  So basically, as long as we can prove that he would not have had that gym membership for any other reason other than to fulfil his role as an actor, it can be deducted.  However, if we cannot prove that conclusively, it will be disallowed.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Roland195
11th Jul 2012 14:20

Not just the gym work

In order to improve his physique, you client will also being having to eat far more than usual and take all sorts of supplements. The food required for this - high quality protein mainly is more expensive which means you client will be spending quite a lot more than he normally would, let alone paying for pills & potions.

Given your clients age, gender, height & weight it is relatively easy to calculate the calories necessary to stay alive so you should in theory be able to calculate the financial cost of the excess calories required in order for him to gain the necessary weight for the part.

If there is a Personal Trainer involved, you could try to include their fees too.

The argument would work much better if he had the part in the first place with a clause in the contract requiring the weight gain though. I imagine that the bloke out the new Batman film must have had something similar.

The duality of purpose argument will still be hard to overcome though. There are significant health benefits to excercise not to mention the effect his new biceps will have on the ladies (or so Men's Health would have you believe - they much prefer bulging wallets but that might come with the part).

 

 

 

 

Thanks (1)
By George Attazder
11th Jul 2012 14:12

Ah I like your thinking...

... a kind of use of body for work charge!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By MarionMorrison
11th Jul 2012 17:04

Nope

I think you'll find that most Inspectors would point at Norman vs Golder and if there are any non-professional benefits out of the gym membership, then strictly speaking you'll not get away with it.  Not that some Inspectors wouldn't allow it on the grounds that any private benefit is an unintended spin-off.  

Thanks (1)