Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

HMRC questions MPs’ accounting expenses

by
21st Aug 2012
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The tax department has been challenging the practice of MPs claiming tax deductions for the cost of employing accountants to prepare their expense claims and tax returns, The Guardian reports.

The newspaper reignited the controversy surrounding MP’s expenses this week after obtaining correspondence between HMRC and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) under the Freedom of Information Act in which the tax department argued that the current practice of allowing claims against accounting fees of up to £5,000 a year per MP is a benefit in kind rather than an expense incurred in the course of their parliamentary work.

Although MPs receive their salary under a PAYE scheme, Ipsa maintained that the way they operated their offices was similar to running a small business.

According to the Guardian, an Ipsa official wrote, “MPs can claim for bought-in services (out of their staffing budget) and professional services (out of their office costs expenditure budget) depending on the nature of their work.”

An HMRC official countered that such expenses did not fall under the definitions set out in s336 of the Income Tax Earnings and Pensions Act 2003 (ITEPA) that deductible expenses had to be incurred “wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of employment”.

The affair escalated into exchanges between more senior officials on both sides and has yet to be resolved.

Ipsa policy director John Sills weighed in to argue that dispensations have been granted for business services to support parliamentary functions. The standards authority also said it would cover MP’s on food, drink and travel expenses at Westminster where HMRC refused dispensations: currently these apply only after 7.30pm for food and drink, and 1am for taxis home following late sittings. Reward and recognition payments to staff are also being contested between the two bodies.

While accountants were as appalled as anyone by the expenses scandal that brought Ipsa into being in 2009, the latest episode creates a conflict of interest: if MP’s aren’t allowed to claim for professional help with their expenses, will they shun the services of accountants?

A quick check of the searchable Ipsa database of MPs’ claims shows that out of a total of £851,466 claimed for unspecified professional services in 2011-12, 57 MPs claimed a total £26,096 for “Parliamentary accountancy”. The average amount claimed was £457.82p, a tidy sum for a tax return and a bit of petty cash work. Chris Kelly, Conservative MP for Dudley South, topped the league with a claim for £1,200, followed by Mid-Bedfordshire Tory Nadine Dorries, who made three claims for £330. Austin Mitchell, a longstanding critic of the profession, claimed £840 accountancy fees and Ian Liddell-Grainger, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary taxation group, claimed £660.

Tax campaigner Richard Murphy argued that HMRC had picked the wrong fight. As well as supporting MP’s right to claim tax deductions for preparing their expenses and tax returns, he argued that everyone should be entitled to a £250 deduction.

“And because tax returns would be better prepared (you would hope) then HMRC would get a benefit too,” he wrote.

Tags:

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By mikewhit
21st Aug 2012 17:07

As Harry Enfield would say ...

"claims against accounting fees of up to £5,000 a year per MP" ?

They saw you coming !!

 

A handful of fulltime civil-service accountants/accounts clerks should be provided to do the accounts work for all the MPs

Thanks (3)
Replying to JMT21:
avatar
By david5541
23rd Aug 2012 13:10

benefit in kind

mikewhit wrote:

""claims against accounting fees of up to £5,000 a year per MP" ?

They saw you coming !!

 

A handful of fulltime civil-service accountants/accounts clerks should be provided to do the accounts work for all the MPs"

the problem is none of the mp's agree with each other and the whole system has become corrupt/a gravy train even more like the EU/brussells/EEC ever since mp's and the house of lords got allowances instead of salaries...

 

thats what comes with voting for your own package.

 

its time for mps and senior civil servants/oh I mean consultants/ to go back onto PAYE and earn a bit of public respect.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ThornyIssues
22nd Aug 2012 07:22

If you are required to file a tax return

You should be able to claim the cost of professional advice in doing so. That goes for everyone. No quibble.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SteveHa:
avatar
By frustratedwithhmrc
22nd Aug 2012 08:38

In principle, I agree

ThornyIssues wrote:
You should be able to claim the cost of professional advice in doing so. That goes for everyone. No quibble.

However, you could imply this as being 'rent seeking' from the Accountancy profession.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
22nd Aug 2012 11:46

You have to laugh....

the 'employee' questioning the 'employer'.....of course it will be 'impartial'  (just don't mention the rather favourable expenses dispensation the revenue have for its own employees)

 

...words that come to mind when MP's mentioned...........'trough....noses....in....the'

Thanks (3)
avatar
By louisVW4
23rd Aug 2012 16:16

If HMRC cave in on this...

...would the average Joe have a case if he used the very same arguments?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By mikewhit
24th Aug 2012 14:33

Money or tax relief ?

The article did not make it clear (to the reader unfamiliar with MP expense terminology) whether the MPs were claiming extra cash from a central pot, or whether they were trying to allocate some expenditure as a permitted expense.

In the first case, the fee in question would amount to an extra payment to the MP.

In the second case, the amount in dispute would only relate to the tax on the fees.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By HUGH W DUNLOP
24th Aug 2012 17:30

MPs’ accounting expenses

Whether it is cash from a central pot or otherwise, the question is really do they get receipts for these outlandish fees? What respectable accountancy firm would charge this much for a job which could be completed by a junior in about half an hour? It looks more like the more common case where they employ their wives as secretaries on about £30,000 per annum.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By geoffwolf
27th Aug 2012 16:36

How stupid!

An MP is not an employee (but is perhaps an office holder) in the normal sense as the constituents he/she represents do not employ him/her. Therefore any number of expenses incurred would not necessarily be incurred by a different person by reason of the MP work that they do. To my mind accountancy falls into a similar category and should be allowed purely in that part of the fee that relates to parliamentary work and formulation of relevant expense claims. 

Thanks (0)