Share this content
0
2462

Breast enlargement surgery for lap dancer

client who is a lap dancer wants breast enlargement to boost income

Hi 

I have a client who is considering breast enlargment surgery soley to boost her income, she works as a lap dancer and a colleague has seen a significant increase in income following a simular surgery and claimed it as an expense ! .

My question really is would it be an expenses to her busineess at all and if so would it be allowable for capital allowenecs. I might just add the enlargement surgery according to the client is much larger than she would want personally its simply to increase her income.

I fear HMRC would not see it as an expense to the business but would welcome your opinions especially as stated above it is larger than someone would normally want privatly purly to attract more oncome in the clubs.

Many thanks 

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
22nd Sep 2017 10:20

'oncome'? Dread to think...

Thanks (1)
22nd Sep 2017 10:32

Assuming she's genuinely self-employed (and not an employee, real or disguised), I'd go for it

It is capital expenditure (rather than revenue expenditure) on plant used for the purposes of the trade (customer titillation), and so allowances are only restricted to the extent that their is private use of the assets. IMHO

Thanks (1)
to Steve Kesby
25th Sep 2017 13:32

You d «  go for it «  ??

So would most red blooded makes .... and probsbly a few females.....

Thanks (0)
to Steve Kesby
25th Sep 2017 13:35

You d «  go for it «  ??

So would most red blooded makes .... and probsbly a few females.....

Thanks (0)
22nd Sep 2017 10:32

Good luck.

Thanks (0)
By tom123
22nd Sep 2017 10:42

How did Martin Clunes get on with his teeth?

Thanks (0)
to tom123
22nd Sep 2017 11:10

Not yet known. We only know that he cannot have an anonymous decision.

Seems likely to fail, because his claim is being made on the basis that the expenditure is revenue expenditure, to which the wholly and exclusively test then applies.

Mind you a capital claim probably wouldn't help either, because I imagine he makes considerable non-trade use of his teeth, whereas breast implants don't really do a lot, apart from explode on aeroplanes.

Thanks (5)
avatar
22nd Sep 2017 10:48

Per BIM50160 ' Some performers may, however, be able to show that expenditure on cosmetic surgery has been incurred solely for professional purposes. Such expenditure may be allowed.'

Thanks (2)
to grahambonds
22nd Sep 2017 11:05

BIM50160 is based on a misconception, on the part of HMRC, that expenditure on cosmetic surgery is revenue expenditure, to which the wholly and exclusively test applies.

It is, in fact, capital expenditure, which, for relief to be available, requires the expenditure to be on plant (or machinery) used (to some extent) for the purposes of the trade, with allowances then being restricted to the extent that there is non-trade use.

Thanks (3)
22nd Sep 2017 10:56

I would need to see them to advise properly...

Thanks (4)
By Tornado
22nd Sep 2017 11:14

"a colleague has seen a significant increase in income following a simular surgery"

Such evidence, if it was possible to cite and prove, might well sway the argument in favour of your client.

At the risk of straying into more intimate details, there is also an argument that the assets involved have a dual purpose but in that connection if it can also be proven that there has been absolutely no change in the before and after functionality, then it can be argued that the capital expenditure has only been for business purposes.

Without knowing all the facts, it seems there is a good chance of making a successful claim. Not too sure how the asset and depreciation should be shown in the Accounts though.

There is also the possibility of repairs and maintenance charges on the asset to take into account as well.

Fascinating stuff.

Thanks (0)
22nd Sep 2017 11:27

To be certain of allowability she will need to take them out after work. The implants, that is.

I don't know much about this stuff, but I presume there is a zip to facilitate this.

Thanks (1)
to andy.partridge
22nd Sep 2017 11:53

Schoolboy tittering aside (sorry) that is a fair point.

I would have thought if the dancer has a subsequent reduction when her career ends that would be good evidence of business purpose.

Thanks (0)
avatar
22nd Sep 2017 12:03

Wasn't someone here warning recently about inflated CAs claims?

Thanks (5)
22nd Sep 2017 12:48

What depreciation policy are you considering, and likely useful lifespan.

In 5 years time when they are around her knees would you make a further claim for the remedial work to the bad boys.

Also insist on physically verifying them every year as part of your year end process.

Great topical Friday question, its even brought Steve out of retirement as not seem him post for ages.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Glennzy
22nd Sep 2017 12:35

Yes; it's brought out the breast in him.

Thanks (2)
to Justin Bryant
22nd Sep 2017 12:51

And everybody thought I was just a distant mammary!

Thanks (2)
to Steve Kesby
22nd Sep 2017 12:53

Ha Ha nice touch Steve, where have you been and why did it take a breast query to bring you back. Do you have google monitoring key phrases.

Thanks (1)
to Glennzy
22nd Sep 2017 13:44

I'm quite often around, I just don't get to post that much, due to other pressures. This point of using capital allowances to counter HMRC's wholly and exclusively argument, is just a pet topic of mine.

If there had been AIA or FYAs in Lady Mallallieu's day, we wouldn't have the awkward precedent that is her legacy.

Thanks (2)
By Tornado
22nd Sep 2017 12:42

Also ... if the assets are specifically insured, (as some actors do for their important (body) parts) then that must also indicate that the assets are for business purposes.

On the other hand, what is the asset? Are we talking about just the implants and their installation costs or the expanded assets as a whole?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Reado
22nd Sep 2017 13:23

Hi

Thanks very much for you opinions and sorry for my typos.

I may then look at making a claim for the surgery, possibly making a private use allowance?. from what the client has told me they are most definitely for work proposes, she has been a client for a number of years and really does treat the dancing as a business. I will though warn the client that there could be issues with compliance should she have a inquiry at some point.

I know its not a run of the mill business expense and really do appreciate your time

Many thanks

Thanks (0)
By mrme89
to Reado
22nd Sep 2017 13:54

Private use adjustment?

It may look creepy if you ask her to keep a log of the private use.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By 356B
22nd Sep 2017 16:04

I saw 22 replies and thought, "Oh no. Not this old 'chest'-nut again."

Thanks (0)
avatar
23rd Sep 2017 17:23

You got some good advice here. Follow through or it may go [***] up.

Thanks (0)
By DJKL
23rd Sep 2017 19:51

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-allowances-manual/ca21130

C.I.R. v Scottish & Newcastle Breweries Ltd. 55TC252 seems on point:

"They found that everything else was plant on the grounds that everything but the electric wiring went to create the atmosphere or ambience that it was an important function of the company’s particular trade to provide for its customers to resort to and enjoy. "

Obviously the [***] themselves are not directly used or involved in the business activity, which involves another part of the anatomy, so maybe the above "ambience" argument will be required.

The following makes the position clearer,

"Decorative assets are likely to be caught by CAA01/S21 - S22 and not to be plant, except where they fall within item 14 of list C CA22030. This covers decorative assets provided for the enjoyment of the public in hotel, restaurant or similar trades. You should only accept that items of decor are plant if the taxpayer can show that:

the trade involves the creation of atmosphere/ambience and in effect the sale of that ambience to its customers, and
the items on which plant or machinery allowances are claimed were specially chosen to create the atmosphere that the taxpayer is trying to sell."

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ldcldc
25th Sep 2017 10:52

If you're old enough to remember Monica Rose who was on Double your money, she had cosmetic dentistry. Inspector said private use of teeth would be 99%. I argued that if she had remained a bus conductress she wouldn't have had it done. I won !
Similarly I had an actor who had dentistry and again on the basis that on cinema screen his head was about 14 feet tall, I won that too.
However, I agree with earlier comment. This lady is an employee, not self employed

Thanks (1)
to ldcldc
25th Sep 2017 11:08

I remember Monica Rose!

Just wickid her to see what she is doing now. Committed suicide in 1994.

Thanks (0)
By Tornado
to ldcldc
25th Sep 2017 14:01

"I argued that if she had remained a bus conductress she wouldn't have had it done. I won !"

I think this is a good point and one of my own tests is 'if my client was not in business, would he/she be making this expenditure". Not necessarily a black and white answer in all cases, but I think this is a good guide as to where an argument to claim an expense/capital expenditure might be found.

"However, I agree with earlier comment. This lady is an employee, not self employed"

Yes indeed, it would be much harder to claim certain expenses as an employee, but in my ignorance, are there not tips and other benefits from employment to take into account?

"I had an actor who had dentistry and again on the basis that on cinema screen his head was about 14 feet tall"

I too had an actor client who suddenly appeared on screen in the local cinema at about 14 feet tall and I nearly choked on my popcorn. It was a TV add that was being screened, so I knew that he had done this, but the size was a huge shock, especially in a cinema where the screen was so close that you had to look left and right to follow the action.

Thanks (0)
avatar
25th Sep 2017 11:23

Enhancement of a fixed assets.

Thanks (0)
25th Sep 2017 13:26

“More ‘ ONCOME’ in the clubs”

Deliciously Freudian......

Thanks (0)
Share this content