Actor and allowances

Can he claim these

Didn't find your answer?

A client is renting a property while in London for an acting project as it's cheaper than travelling every day.

He also says he can claim £25 a day food allowance. 
 

I am unsure as I'm not sure if he's technically working away from home.

Still can't believe he can claim his tv subscriptions as tax deductible but it's 'research'

 

Replies (13)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By David Ex
29th May 2024 19:19

It would be rude not to mention this case, which may or may not be of some relevance:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5765155aed915d622c00002d/...

0098087 wrote:

Still can't believe he can claim his tv subscriptions as tax deductible but it's 'research' 

Me either. Is that HMRC's position? No duality? Hard to believe.

Thanks (2)
Replying to David Ex:
avatar
By FactChecker
29th May 2024 22:43

One wonders if Tim Healy's previous role had been in pantomime:

TH: This expense is allowable
HMRC: Oh no it isn't
FTT: Oh yes it is
UT: No it isn't
FTT: Back so soon ('turn again Healy')?

[Any idea what eventually transpired?]

Thanks (3)
avatar
By 0098087
29th May 2024 19:28

Looking online it appears that some accountants for actors state tv subs are allowable

Thanks (0)
Replying to 0098087:
avatar
By David Ex
29th May 2024 19:47

0098087 wrote:

Looking online it appears that some accountants for actors state tv subs are allowable

I can believe they do but wonder if HMRC agree! Maybe relatively small amounts that don't get challenged.

Thanks (0)
RLI
By lionofludesch
29th May 2024 21:42

Good luck with the rental thing.

Tim Healy's claim failed because he invited friends and family to stay. If he hadn't, his claim might have failed on something else or it may not.

"Research" is not unreasonable as long as it's within his genre. If it's Sky Sports, I'd say no.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By FactChecker
29th May 2024 22:36

... unless his next part requires him to 'dive' with at least some believability?

Thanks (6)
avatar
By jonharris999
30th May 2024 06:39

If he is an Equity member, then Equity's excellent tax and welfare team give good advice about these very common but intricate issues. Otherwise, if you aren't confident with them you shouldn't really accept engagements from that sector. (We wouldn't accept an engagement from, say, an offshore oil rig worker.)

Thanks (8)
Replying to jonharris999:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
30th May 2024 08:59

I talk a lot of rubbish in here - but I know sense when I see it, and I see it in this post by jonharris999.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
DougScott
By Dougscott
30th May 2024 09:13

Yes, the Equity guidance is your friend.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Dougscott:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
30th May 2024 13:37

Not what I meant, but yes that too.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By More unearned luck
30th May 2024 15:23

On duality and actors, compare the current guidance on clothing in BIM50160 with what it used to say:

"You should also allow the cost of costume and grooming (for example hairdressing and make up) incurred by a performer making ‘personal appearances’ the sole purpose of which is to promote their business activities.

"Example: A film actress may acquire an evening gown solely for the purpose of attending the premiere performance of her latest film. The cost of the gown is allowable. The later private use of a gown, which as a question of fact was bought solely for use at a premiere or other such occasion, does not result in disallowance of the expenditure. But if the actress bought the gown with a view to use both at the premiere and on other private occasions, no deduction is due."

The above was in BIM50160 at least until Feb 2006, which is 23 years after the HL decision in Mallalieu. Perhaps the view was that cost of evening gowns is allowable as sometimes they provide only de minimis warmth and decency.

Thanks (3)
Replying to More unearned luck:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th May 2024 15:43

More unearned luck wrote:

The above was in BIM50160 at least until Feb 2006, which is 23 years after the HL decision in Mallalieu. Perhaps the view was that cost of evening gowns is allowable as sometimes they provide only de minimis warmth and decency.

[chuckle]

Thanks (2)
Replying to More unearned luck:
DougScott
By Dougscott
30th May 2024 16:33

Not even sure some of them provide even "de minimis" decency.

Thanks (0)