It's disgraceful! It ought not to be allowed! By Simon Sweetman

Some among you ' perhaps the more mature ' will recognise these as the words of Mr Growser from Toytown. One might suggest from his manner and choice of words that perhaps he was a subscriber to this website, but for the moment I want to channel Mr Growser myself.

There are many decisions of the courts which seem unreasonable (or that is to say they don't help), but beyond that there are some which seem to fly in the face of reason.

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments

boots

oldersimon | | Permalink

Surely football boots are consumable items. I do not believe that modern football boots can possibly "endure in the way that fixed capital endures", as the noble lord said.

Strange scenes inside the Tax-mine

geoffemtacs | | Permalink

What baffles me is the inconsistencies that have resulted from the conclusions drawn in the CvsQ case (I alway have to look up how to spell Callybotty).

The Revenue interpretation is the idea that meals for subistence purposes can be claimed, so long as an overnight stay is involved. We deal with musicians and actors in the main and they are frequently away from home for performance purposes.

The CvsQ ruling has meant that there is no consistency in the way such meanls are treated because there isn't consistency in the dining decisions of the clients. So a client based in London will be able to claim for the meals he takes whilst staying overnight in Reading but will not be able to claim if he has a meal and then drives back from Newcastle.

Similarly a post gig meal will frequently have people there who are sharing a meal and some are staying and some are going home.

Then a few years back, a fellow accountant told me of a tack he had taken with the Revenue that had proved successful as a means of claiming for lunches. He pointed out that the Revenue (and other PAYE people)had a scale of meal allowances that were payable to their staff in the event that they were away from their normal place of business for periods in excess of 5 or 10 hours.

Now these payments were not treated as taxable so long as they were within agreed tolerances (around £5-6 for lunch and a bit more for dinner). But stricty speaking the expense payments are taxable and treated as tax-deductible while they remain below the de minimis limits. Ergo the Revenue themselves are allowing claims for reasonable meals and so there should be a consistency of treatment for all (taxpayers' charter, guv).

So we have been in the habit of claiming for such instances of meals taken between rehearsals and performances, or lunches eaten by a Blue Badge guide etc etc. We've had a couple of challenges to this from Inspectors who have backed down and accepted the claims between gritted teeth (well they like to describe it as 'without prejudice' actually).

There's too little tax at stake for anyone to want to treat this as a point of principle but I'd be curious to know if other people had had any similar experiences or success.