Modelling Expenses

NickyW

Hi there - I wonder if anyone can help me. Have nearly finished my AAT and helping a friend out with her accounts before she passes them on to her accountant.
She is a model and has got a whole load of receipts - 1 of them is for a NHS prescription for a skin condition she has - which if untreated would prevent her from modelling - is this an allowable expense?
Also she has got receipts for various healthfood vitamin supplements are these allowable - if so wouldn't fruit and vegatables and healthy food?
Can anyone send me a link I should refer to if I am in doubt of whether they are allowable expenses.
Any replies would be greatly appreciated.
Nicky

PGM

Quite possibly none of that is allowable, because you have to be able to prove its solely for the purpose of trade.

burg

I agree with PGM.

She would still need to treat her skin condition if she wasn't a model, she would still need to eat fruit and veg and would still possibly need vitamin supplements.

I think she would really struggle arguing any of these are business expenses.

Monsoon

burg wrote: »

She would still need to treat her skin condition if she wasn't a model

Not necessarily - she might choose to treat it so she can get modelling work, if she wasn't being a model she might be happy to live with it. Depends what it is.

However, I'd agree that it would normally fail the W+E test.

I'm pretty sure there are some alternative rules for models, actors etc, and things that would normally be disallowable can be put through. I'm not necessarily thinking the skin treatment here but just in general. I don't know how to go about finding these things though.

Vitamins/ Healthy food is a non starter.

JodieR

This might help... http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM50160.htm

burg

Monsoon wrote: »

Not necessarily - she might choose to treat it so she can get modelling work, if she wasn't being a model she might be happy to live with it. Depends what it is.

See your point but I think she would have a hard time arguing it?

JodieR

It's probably a similar situation to the example at the end of the link I posted - if she can prove that she was content with living with it untreated before she started modelling then it may be allowable.

blobbyh

JodieR wrote: »

It's probably a similar situation to the example at the end of the link I posted - if she can prove that she was content with living with it untreated before she started modelling then it may be allowable.

Good luck with proving that one! Due to a models nature, they'd have to be pretty vain before even becoming a pro so arguing it 'exclusively' after the fact would seem a completely lost cause to me. Teeth possibly, skincare not in a million.

PGM

blobbyh wrote: »

Good luck with proving that one! Due to a models nature, they'd have to be pretty vain before even becoming a pro so arguing it 'exclusively' after the fact would seem a completely lost cause to me. Teeth possibly, skincare not in a million.

You're the "House" of the accountancy world!

andrewtdk

Models and actors expenses always get me confused because on the hmrc link it says "self-employed television interviewer may deduct the costs of a lounge suit acquired solely for use before the cameras - it is the interviewer’s ‘costume’" however i remember reading not long back an article about Sian Williams where her accountant went to a tribunal trying to claim costs for her clothing etc and this was rejected. These type of expenses always seem like a bit of a grey area to me or it may just be that im not up to speed on the rules

payrollpro

Andrew,

And we must not forget the classic case of the barrister who wanted a deduction for her gown and wig on the grounds they were W+E. The judge rejected it stating that the clothing had personal use, she could wear them to a fancy dress party!!! I think she won a concession on appeal but I'm not sure.

Payrollpro

Monsoon

I wasn't suggesting that the skin treatments would be allowable - only that they may be, and Jodie's link does suggest that they may be, though the burden of proof of W&E is on the taxpayer.

An example of proving it would be medical records stating she didn't get the treatment for months 1-3, and that she had no work in months 1-3, but that when work commenced in months 4-6, she took the treatment, then left it again. The argument "she's a model so she must be vain" is subjective.

I think with all of these things, it is subjective interpretation. It all depends on the facts of the individual case, the savvy of the accountant involved, and the tenacity/ reasonableness of the tax inspector. Remember also that in the majority of cases a tax inspector will never look, so if you interpret the legislation to mean it's allowable and are happy to argue it, put it in. After all, we're supposed to be acting in the best interests of our clients. I would always put in writing that it's a grey area, I feel 99% confident that it's allowable, 80% confident in arguiong it should they ask, and there is always a chance if it's looked at it will get rejected, though will do my best etc (also refer to the penalties under the new regime). If the client says "Yes go ahead" then that's what you do - and you have covered your back.

Also remember the HMRC Manuals are great points of reference -but they are HMRC's interpretation from THEIR point of view. They aren't law. If you interpret the legislation differently, you are within your right to do so, as long as you can justify it.

PP, I'm not sure which case you're referring to. The famous barrister one is Malliaeu v Drummond, where she was claiming for her suit that she wore under her wig, and that was thrown out due to warmth and decency. I've never heard of the one you mention, but it sounds ridiculous! Wig and gown are clearly uniform and W&E (and if you want to dress up as a barrister at a fancy dress party (if that's your job why the hell would you?!), you rent something from the shop...).