Reply to: MPs expenses

[tractor]

..

The MP's expenses watchdog said that they were a 'business cost'; happy to be corrected but aren't MP's employed by the Government and are therefore subject to the taxation rules surrounding employment? If they are a 'business' cost then one would logically assume that the cost had been incurred by a 'business' - wonder if HMR&C have checked their IR35 status as well?

Especially considering this quote from the article "This, Ipsa argued, was because MPs are effectively self-employed and deserved the same tax settlement as small businesses."

It's hard to work out who Ipsa consider their employer lol if it's me, mine will get fired on Tuesday!!

[NickNick]

MPs excluded from tax avoidance legislation - 07 Apr 2011 - Accountancy Age

Interesting, so just the one area then, as the Slander one is not specific to MPs.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I can't think of any off the top of my head outside of the slander one. Can you let me know any of the others?

MPs excluded from tax avoidance legislation - 07 Apr 2011 - Accountancy Age

[NickNick]

100% agree but there are quite a few laws that apply to us and not to them aren't there?

I can't think of any off the top of my head outside of the slander one. Can you let me know any of the others?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

How would an MP use the substitution clause ?

[FiveTimes]

wonder if HMR&C have checked their IR35 status as well?

How would an MP use the substitution clause ?

[ASB]

Lisa, It used to be the case that there was a specific part of thetax return for MP's. Might still be. This was not in the public domain.

However, there are still no circumstance where allowing them accountancy/advice costs on personal affairs whilst disallowing it for everybody else is ever in any way right - even if it is lawful.

Seems it is now in the public domain. Here is the guidance. Make of it what you will.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/forms/sa102-mp-m1.pdf

P16.

Not allowed:
• mortgage interest on an office or part of a residence used as an office
• newspapers, books and periodicals of general interest, newspaper
cutting services
• charitable subscriptions
• constituency newsletters and other circulars relating to party political
activities, canvassing literature, election expenses, Christmas cards
• entertaining constituents or others, expenses incurred by spouses,
for example, in deputising for, or accompanying, MPs
• accountancy fees incurred in the preparation of the Self Assessment tax return or related expenses claims
• payments to political organisations for party political purposes
• any expense incurred as a member of a political party
• charges for private phone calls and the rental charge where the line
is used (even partly) for private calls.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Lisa, It used to be the case that there was a specific part of thetax return for MP's. Might still be. This was not in the public domain.

However, there are still no circumstance where allowing them accountancy/advice costs on personal affairs whilst disallowing it for everybody else is ever in any way right - even if it is lawful.

100% agree but there are quite a few laws that apply to us and not to them aren't there?

[ASB]

The MP's expenses watchdog said that they were a 'business cost'; happy to be corrected but aren't MP's employed by the Government and are therefore subject to the taxation rules surrounding employment? If they are a 'business' cost then one would logically assume that the cost had been incurred by a 'business' - wonder if HMR&C have checked their IR35 status as well?

Lisa, It used to be the case that there was a specific part of thetax return for MP's. Might still be. This was not in the public domain.

However, there are still no circumstance where allowing them accountancy/advice costs on personal affairs whilst disallowing it for everybody else is ever in any way right - even if it is lawful.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

The MP's expenses watchdog said that they were a 'business cost'; happy to be corrected but aren't MP's employed by the Government and are therefore subject to the taxation rules surrounding employment? If they are a 'business' cost then one would logically assume that the cost had been incurred by a 'business' - wonder if HMR&C have checked their IR35 status as well?

[Wanderer]

they raised concerns that the MPs' costs were "personal rather than wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of the member's parliamentary function".

At the height of the MP's expenses scandal I was talking to a mate down the pub and I suggested that the MP's expenses were unreasonable and excessive. He countered by asking how I define what are "reasonable" expenses. Of course, the answer is that that HMRC have very clear rules about what is allowed as employee's expenses and what attracts tax as a BIK and all they need to do is apply those exact same rules to MPs.

Still sounds like it's one rule for them and another for everyone else.....

[moggy]

£5,000 seems a high fee for a tax return for an employee, unless it involves complicated income streams and tax structures.....

High fees! I wonder if they use a preferred company that someone they know has an interest in.. wouldn't be the first time for MP's i'm sure.

The same sort of thing happens with the MoD suppliers are ex colleagues and costs are way over the odds.

[bobspud]

BBC News - Tax inspector in row with MPs over expenses

I read this phrase and thought of you...
In another e-mail, they raised concerns that the MPs' costs were "personal rather than wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of the member's parliamentary function".

Interesting that this was going on while Liz Homer and her little Turd puppies were getting a total kicking by MP's in a select committee over the fact that they are useless, incompetent, dishonest, lying, morons and had cost the UK Billions in tax receipts because they did a deal with Goldman Sachs and Vodafone after they had already won the cases and were able to claim the whole amount owed to them...

She spent nearly an hour telling the chair that they don't cut deals and then somehow managed to admit that they take a view on what it would cost to prosecute and figure out a recoverable fee as a result...

Also in the news the top lawyers used for these big cases are mostly not tax trained

[Clare@InTouch]

The rules for employees are stricter than those for a limited company - for a limited company an expense only needs to be "wholly and exclusively", whereas they add the "necessarily" when thinking about employees.

Accountancy fees are always pretty much deemed to be not for the purposes of the trade, but something of a concession by HMRC to allow them as long as they don't relate to extra fees in defending an investigation.

£5,000 seems a high fee for a tax return for an employee, unless it involves complicated income streams and tax structures.....

[moggy]

It would be interesting to see what 'Accoutancy fees' mean exactly. Does this cover them paying their spouses 5k a year under 'book keeping' or is it the exact value paid to a certified accountant. I would be willing to bet it is the former which would should have the contractor paying his wife for the same worried.

Agreed, there was so much made of the toilet seats that people seemed to forget the huge cost that MP's land on us for employing all their friends and family to help run their constituencies and advise them.