Oooh, Dear Me Libby

It\’s nice to see a bit of frothing outrage now and again.

It is an old injustice, and old feminist carp: why should a tycoon glide round to see his mistress in a chauffered car and deem it a business expense, while a tycooness – contributing equally to the economy – can\’t claim for the person who makes it possible for her to step outside the house without a baby buggy? Why must a single mother, seeking to better herself and join the taxpaying classes, fund her childminder out of taxed income while her employer claims as corporate-entertainment the cost of taking his old mates to Henley or Spearmint Rhino?

Only one problem with it of course.

Entertainment expenses are not allowable against tax.

\’Non-allowable\’ expenses

Some expenses are legally deductible in the profit and loss account under the accounting rules and conventions but are \’not deductible\’, or are \’not allowable\’ for tax purposes, while some items shown in accounting profit are not taxable and must therefore be deducted in computing taxable profit. Expenses considered \’not allowable\’ include the following: * depreciation on tangible fixed assets * amortisation of goodwill on consolidation * losses on sale of fixed assets * entertainment expenses.

Tsk, tsk.

9 thoughts on “Oooh, Dear Me Libby”

  1. Yes, but the for those in the import and export business the expenses of holding Ugandan discussions are surely deductible?

  2. > Entertainment expenses are not allowable against tax.

    Which simply means that they don’t label it as “entertainment” in the books, not that it doesn’t happen. I fail to see how this affects the substance of Purves’s complaint, to be honest.

  3. “I fail to see how this affects the substance of Purves’s complaint, to be honest.”

    If you’re going to lie about tax deductions, you can lie about the day care costs too. It’s, err, “training”.

  4. > If you’re going to lie about tax deductions, you can lie about the day care costs too. It’s, err, “training”.

    Which has what to do with Purves’s complaint?

    Look, Purves has written an entirely accurate article about the reality of what happens if you use tons of public money to buy a mansion (it’s within the rules which you yourself wrote, so it’s perfectly OK and will have zero impact on your prospects) versus what happens if you use a little bit of public money to pay someone to do some secretarial work for you. Sure, the secretary is also a nanny. Woman In Two Jobs Shocker! Sure, this creates a grey area, but no greyer than the bit on my tax return where I estimate how much of my broadband bill is for work and how much isn’t, for which no-one from HMRC has ever asked me for any evidence. Big deal.

    How, exactly, does pointing out that you’re not supposed to claim entertainment expenses back from the taxman have any bearing whatsoever on any of that?

    Tim adds: Because Purves specifically complains that you can’t claim back the tax on a Nanny but you can on business entertainment…..which you can’t.

  5. It affects it by vitiating it completely, Squander, you bloody fool.

    That wasn’t what I logged in to say,but it needs saying. My intended comment was it was under dear old Jim Callaghan that entertainment expenses were disallowed, I think. Libby Purves obviously isn’t as old as she looks.

  6. Oh, right, I see. So Margaret Beckett didn’t charge the taxpayer £6500 for her garden after all? And MPs can’t claim £750 for stereos? Now I understand.

  7. “Oh, right, I see. So Margaret Beckett didn’t charge the taxpayer £6500 for her garden after all?”

    No, you don’t see. Tim’s point was that neither childcare nor entertainment are tax deductible, and was refuting the quoted paragraph. The words “taxpayer” “Beckett” “MP” and “garden” do not appear in the quoted paragraph. Tim’s point is nothing to do with MPs’ expenses.

  8. Yes, I got that, thanks. Which is why I said “I fail to see how this affects the substance of Purves’s complaint”, not “Tim, you’re dead wrong.” Chris claimed that the one error pointed out by Tim rendered Purves’s entire piece completely wrong. As you say yourself, “Tim’s point is nothing to do with MPs’ expenses.” So you’d agree that Chris is talking out of his arse, then. Thank you.

    I really wasn’t trying to start some huge argument here. It was a minor passing comment that I thought Purves was broadly right. Didn’t expect everyone to start jumping down my throat about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *