'Christmas Party' paid expenses limit?

[MrMarkyMark]

Aha, Ok. I thought it was about a ClientCo's Christmas Party and whether one were invited or not.
Thanks for the explanation. Noone else bothered, just showered the abuse.

Well, obviously you didn't think, otherwise you wouldn't have got it so spectacularly wrong.

Try engaging brain, before posting total carp and you might find you get a better response from people.

[CloudWalker]

Got invited to the company Christmas party at a swanky London bar, but they wanted £20 for drinks n nibbles.
So thought I'd have a look at the menu and they didn't even have Twiglets! jog on#'!

[Michael at BI Accountancy]

they didn't even have Twiglets! jog on#'!

They didn't have twiglets, what kind of establishment was this!

[Glencky]

DannyF1966 has raised the most pertinent point. I actually searched the forums and found this thread specifically because of this point. I was trying to determine the answer to the very simple question - if I'm a sole director and want to invite my spouse only (who has no connection to the company) - is the limit £150 or £300.

I have seen the HMRC guidance which says the cost per head is determined by dividing the total cost by the number of people present, including non-employees. Fine, that means it's effectively £300. But this article (that has been linked to more than once on this thread)

Contractors' Questions: Can my limited company fund a Christmas party? :: Contractor UK

... gives worked examples which make it very clear that at least one accountant thinks it's a £150 limit. I think they are talking nonsense (based on my interpretation of HMRC's guidance, which even has the 'including non employees' in bold, FFS!)

So - thoughts, please, learned people of the forum, on this specific conflict?

[Fred Bloggs]

It's £300.

[Glencky]

Thanks for the quick response, Fred Bloggs but - given this article has clearly been linked to repeatedly not only in this thread but in earlier threads, why has it never been spotted pointed out to CUK and edited if that is the case? The worked examples are very wrong indeed if the answer is £300 (I'm not blaming you, by the way! this is an open question!)

[DaveB]

Christmas parties in the office with half a plastic cup of warm Asti and some dogdy Iceland "canapés" are for permies.

FTFY,

[Fred Bloggs]

Thanks for the quick response, Fred Bloggs but - given this article has clearly been linked to repeatedly not only in this thread but in earlier threads, why has it never been spotted pointed out to CUK and edited if that is the case? The worked examples are very wrong indeed if the answer is £300 (I'm not blaming you, by the way! this is an open question!)

No idea, I've never needed to refer to the guide.

[WordIsBond]

Thanks for the quick response, Fred Bloggs but - given this article has clearly been linked to repeatedly not only in this thread but in earlier threads, why has it never been spotted pointed out to CUK and edited if that is the case? The worked examples are very wrong indeed if the answer is £300 (I'm not blaming you, by the way! this is an open question!)

Good catch. The examples do indeed indicate the answer is £150. The examples directly contradict the article itself. Note this especially:

The exemption also applies to employee’s or director’s guests: a guest includes a spouse, registered civil partner, children of the director or employee and clients, although including clients can impact on the way that VAT is reported.

And (emphasis added):

The limit of £150 per director or employee (and guest as appropriate) includes VAT, so you must ensure that no more than £150 is spent. The entire amount need not be spent against a single event but could include two or three events, just so long as it does not exceed £150 per head in the tax year or per event; if you spend £151, you will be liable for the whole amount!

So the article is self-contradictory. In any event, the HMRC guidance is clear.

[yakitoo]

In any event, the HMRC guidance is clear.

That's got to be a first.