Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    6,410
    Like
    0
    Liked 32 Times in 32 Posts

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Kent, near Brands Hatch
    Posts
    6,539
    Like
    0
    Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by wedge
    Business expense. Good luck to them.

    However, if they operate from an offshore address then boo and hiss.

    Opinions are like ar5eholes, everyone has one.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,778
    Like
    3
    Liked 50 Times in 33 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by wedge
    Would they have incurred that fine if they weren't involved in F1?

  4. #24
    Senior Member Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Sep 1666
    Posts
    10,462
    Like
    15
    Liked 201 Times in 155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Malbec
    Would they have incurred that fine if they weren't involved in F1?
    That is the general question involved here. The courts decided that they would not.

    Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
    [i]Section 74
    General rules as to deductions not allowable
    Subject to the provisions of the Tax Acts, in computing the amount of the profits or gains to be charged under Case I or Case II of Schedule D, no sum shall be deducted in respect of—
    (e)any loss not connected with or arising out of the trade, profession or vocation;

    Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

    The £49m is obviously directly connected with generating an income. That is not a very difficult statement to prove I would wager.

    "We are accepting that businesses can behave improperly and be rewarded in a sense for it"
    - Gordon Farquhar, 11 Oct 2012
    BBC News - Today - McLaren £49m 'cheat' fine is tax deductible

    Well duh.

    Financial institutions write off all sorts of loans that they should never ethically have lent out, parking fines are normally deductible in the hands of delivery companies and I forget where but there is a case which a prostitute successfully argued according to ICTA 88 that certain assets have an estimated life and that there should be an allowable deduction for depreciation on them.
    Even income which is subject to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 might be defined as assessable or " "taxable income" under ICTA 88 and as such, expenses incurred in generating that income are deductible - petrol used in the getaway car in a bank job, for instance.
    The Old Republic was a stupidly run organisation which deserved to be taken over. All Hail Palpatine!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •