HMRC lose case against a pole dancer claiming knickers as expenses

[Lance]

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/...for-tax-relief

This is an excellent lesson in how the law interprets 'wholly and exclusively'.

The type of clothes Daniels wore to perform at Stringfellows were “not appropriate to be worn outside that club”; they were “see-through” and “skimpy”. Most importantly, they “could not be described as providing ‘warmth and decency’"

[Lance]

interesting that claiming without invoices was allowed as she wasn't accused of lying.

[vetran]

excellent I will tell Mrs V she can claim for knickers if ever she takes to the stage.

She will have to buy some big granny ones to wear to court!

[WTFH]

So that means lube is a business expense since it's only required for work due to HMRC moving the goal posts years after the match has finished.

[vetran]

So that means lube is a business expense since it's only required for work due to HMRC moving the goal posts years after the match has finished.

so when did you retire from "NLyUK Unlimited"?

[NickFitz]

Apparently, while no-one cares if you look like an off-duty barrister on the bus, the courts draw the line at looking like an off-duty exotic dancer!

Apparently the courts never take the bus round here on a Friday night

[NotAllThere]

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/...for-tax-relief

This is an excellent lesson in how the law interprets 'wholly and exclusively'.

Or in this case, holey and exclusively.

I guess vicars robes fail the holy and exclusively test.

[Lance]

Or in this case, holey and exclusively.

I guess vicars robes fail the holy and exclusively test.

if it was winter it would fail 'woolly and exclusively'

[barrydidit]

I believe this Inspector dealt with a number of Stringfellows dancers

He does sound like a confirmed it must be said.

[northernladuk]

NLadyUK's are big enough to prove warmth and decency... and to tuck her t*ts in while running for the 47 bus so most definitely duality of purpose there.