Sponsored Links
You can only be ripped off if you regard the value of service or goods to be worth considerably less than what you are expected to pay.
Why should a clients age (pensioner) make them any more or less vulnerable?
So long as a professionals hourly rate is laid out in full, prior to any engagement then ones ability to pay said fees is irrelevant. You either accept and pay or go elsewhere.
Sponsored Links
Joe is jealous.
Rightly so.
There are uneducated morons out there licking shop windows, simply wishing they could afford whats on the other side.
So long as there is wealth/money/class, then there will always be jealousy.
And I'm one of them....
No they were not.
I have posted the link to the official government publication, and highlighted several examples where the rules not guidelines, were very clearly breached.
Expenses must be necessary to be able to do the job.
Value for money must be assured.
The latest discovery today:
£8800, yes, nearly ninethousand quid, for a ......... television
Arguable necessity, and not exactly value for money.
Just why would any tv be a reaso purchase for a politico?
Ooi, at my previous place, we bought a small portable tv for the office, for the sole purpose of watching drain cctv scans. There was no aerial on the building, no real mechanism for watching tv. But IR disallowed it as a biz expense.
Ooi, at my previous place, we bought a small portable tv for the office, for the sole purpose of watching drain cctv scans. There was no aerial on the building, no real mechanism for watching tv. But IR disallowed it as a biz expense.
Outrageous, how else were you expected to view a video tape?
And on what grounds could they turn it down? I have known far more ambiguous claims get through.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit, but you could find some reason in keeping up with current affairs, and watching the parliament channel being necessary for an mp. Or at least useful.
Thin ice, granted, but you could argue it.
8800 quid???
For a tv?
I didn't even know they existed that expensive.
Thin ice, granted, but you could argue it.
8800 quid???
For a tv?
I didn't even know they existed that expensive.
The point that Hector made was that, as it had an aerial soclet on the back, we *could* watch tv on it, if we so chose, ergo it was not amply demonstrated that it was used wholly in connection with employment. Ditto the video player, on which we *could* play non-drain type vids.Outrageous, how else were you expected to view a video tape?
And on what grounds could they turn it down? I have known far more ambiguous claims get through.
I did point out to Hector that I had a van outside with shovels and other tools contained therein that I *could* take home and use to dig over my garden, thus I was unable to demonstrate that those tools too were wholly used for work. He was not persuaded by my sarcasm.
In fact, so not persuaded and so not enamoured of my low form of wit was he, that he smacked us for a £17k non-compliance bill (which, by many subsequent hours of judicious jackanory, I managed to get reduced to £1.7k).
Sponsored Links
