Now that the deadline has passed I presume people will begin reading 
this NG again, and so I have a question.

HMRC kindly sent out letters containing lists of common mistakes 
because, so the letters says, "most of our enquiries result in extra tax 
being payable". Well, firstly isn't that always going to be the case 
because when they enquire and you submit your evidence all that can 
happen is that they find things to disallow which you've claimed for. 
Clearly, they aren't going to find things that you've not claimed (to 
reduce the tax burden) because by definition you can't have submitted 
that as part of your evidence and so they can't know about them!

Anyway, my main question concerned their example of not allowing a 
photographer to claim for any part of the cost of an eye operation 
because this affects the function of the photographers eyes in normal 
social domestic life as well as their business life. However, surely if 
the photographer *only* needs the operation in order to perform their 
business function, whilst it may be true that it affects their social 
domestic life, isn't that incidental. If the purpose is purely in 
conjunction with their business shouldn't it be allowable?

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:12:30 +0000, HC  wrote:

>Clearly, they aren't going to find things that you've not claimed (to 
>reduce the tax burden) because by definition you can't have submitted 
>that as part of your evidence and so they can't know about them!

But clearly this does occur...so maybe not so clear after all.

--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris

 ()'.'.'()
 ( (T) )
 ( ) . ( )
 (")_(")

HC wrote:

> Now that the deadline has passed I presume people will begin reading
> this NG again, and so I have a question.
> 
> HMRC kindly sent out letters containing lists of common mistakes
> because, so the letters says, "most of our enquiries result in extra tax
> being payable". Well, firstly isn't that always going to be the case
> because when they enquire and you submit your evidence all that can
> happen is that they find things to disallow which you've claimed for.
> Clearly, they aren't going to find things that you've not claimed (to
> reduce the tax burden) because by definition you can't have submitted
> that as part of your evidence and so they can't know about them!
> 
> Anyway, my main question concerned their example of not allowing a
> photographer to claim for any part of the cost of an eye operation
> because this affects the function of the photographers eyes in normal
> social domestic life as well as their business life. However, surely if
> the photographer *only* needs the operation in order to perform their
> business function, whilst it may be true that it affects their social
> domestic life, isn't that incidental. If the purpose is purely in
> conjunction with their business shouldn't it be allowable?

At best you might say there should be an apportionment.  The photographer
benefits from so-much business use and so-much private use of the improved
eye, measured perhaps in hours per typical day.  Amortise over the
expected life of the eye, or the business, whichever is shorter.

Unfortunately, even while the eye is being used for business purposes,
it is also *and at the same time* being used for the private purpose
of making sure the photographer can find his way about the studio
without tripping over things.  This means that the above apportionment
cannot be between private and business but only between private and mixed.
Mixed use is not allowable.

The example bears a striking resemblance to the one about the barrister's
clothes - Mallalieu v Drummond.

Ronald Raygun wrote:
> HC wrote:
> 
>> Now that the deadline has passed I presume people will begin reading
>> this NG again, and so I have a question.
>>
>> HMRC kindly sent out letters containing lists of common mistakes
>> because, so the letters says, "most of our enquiries result in extra tax
>> being payable". Well, firstly isn't that always going to be the case
>> because when they enquire and you submit your evidence all that can
>> happen is that they find things to disallow which you've claimed for.
>> Clearly, they aren't going to find things that you've not claimed (to
>> reduce the tax burden) because by definition you can't have submitted
>> that as part of your evidence and so they can't know about them!
>>
>> Anyway, my main question concerned their example of not allowing a
>> photographer to claim for any part of the cost of an eye operation
>> because this affects the function of the photographers eyes in normal
>> social domestic life as well as their business life. However, surely if
>> the photographer *only* needs the operation in order to perform their
>> business function, whilst it may be true that it affects their social
>> domestic life, isn't that incidental. If the purpose is purely in
>> conjunction with their business shouldn't it be allowable?
> 
> At best you might say there should be an apportionment.  The photographer
> benefits from so-much business use and so-much private use of the improved
> eye, measured perhaps in hours per typical day.  Amortise over the
> expected life of the eye, or the business, whichever is shorter.
> 
> Unfortunately, even while the eye is being used for business purposes,
> it is also *and at the same time* being used for the private purpose
> of making sure the photographer can find his way about the studio
> without tripping over things.  This means that the above apportionment
> cannot be between private and business but only between private and mixed.
> Mixed use is not allowable.
> 
> The example bears a striking resemblance to the one about the barrister's
> clothes - Mallalieu v Drummond.
> 

I certainly agree with Ronalds comments if the OP is an employee, but I 
seem to remember there wa smething for self employed performers where 
certain cosmetic surgery was allowed?

HC wrote:
> Now that the deadline has passed I presume people will begin reading 
> this NG again, and so I have a question.
> 
> HMRC kindly sent out letters containing lists of common mistakes 
> because, so the letters says, "most of our enquiries result in extra tax 
> being payable". Well, firstly isn't that always going to be the case 
> because when they enquire and you submit your evidence all that can 
> happen is that they find things to disallow which you've claimed for. 
> Clearly, they aren't going to find things that you've not claimed (to 
> reduce the tax burden) because by definition you can't have submitted 
> that as part of your evidence and so they can't know about them!



The reason that most enquiries result in additional tax is because 
people claim for things that are not allowed. The premise is its a lot 
cheaper to educate people before they make their returns, so HMRC gets 
the right amout in th first place and does not need to make so many 
enquiries, and can then sack another 12000 staff.

Simon wrote:

> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>> 
>> Unfortunately, even while the eye is being used for business purposes,
>> it is also *and at the same time* being used for the private purpose
>> of making sure the photographer can find his way about the studio
>> without tripping over things.  This means that the above apportionment
>> cannot be between private and business but only between private and
>> mixed. Mixed use is not allowable.
> 
> I certainly agree with Ronalds comments if the OP is an employee, but I
> seem to remember there wa smething for self employed performers where
> certain cosmetic surgery was allowed?

Are you talking about boob jobs?

Ronald Raygun wrote:
> Simon wrote:
> 
>> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, even while the eye is being used for business purposes,
>>> it is also *and at the same time* being used for the private purpose
>>> of making sure the photographer can find his way about the studio
>>> without tripping over things.  This means that the above apportionment
>>> cannot be between private and business but only between private and
>>> mixed. Mixed use is not allowable.
>> I certainly agree with Ronalds comments if the OP is an employee, but I
>> seem to remember there wa smething for self employed performers where
>> certain cosmetic surgery was allowed?
> 
> Are you talking about boob jobs?
> 
I think it was mre a newsperson having a mole removed? I would hate to 
think that so much of Pamela Anderson was tax deductable