Mystery Shopping Thread 20 **PLEASE DO NOT MENTION CLIENT NAMES OR FEES ON HERE**

dazza.mk

HappyMJ wrote: »

Most of my mystery shopping jobs create a loss on paper. The HMRC really don't mind. Even my normal day job (computer engineer) creates losses some of the time.

Join mysteryshoppersuk, you'll find a thread there of when a shopper was audited by HMRC and you'll find that they very much do mind.

HappyMJ wrote: »

I do jobs for the free stuff and the perks

Congratulations! with that statement you've effectively said that as you are concerned you gain more than an incidental benefit on all jobs so I'd say all your expenses are disallowable

dazza.mk

HappyMJ wrote: »

The council look at every entry on my accounts in detail. The rules are different but the council usually allows less expenses than the HMRC. They are more strict. I don't earn enough to pay tax so the HMRC leave me alone.

Rules for a day job are somewhat different, you can argue you've made a loss to build a reputation with the council in furtherance of getting more (profitable) work.

People have said they'd argue the same in relation to mystery shopping companies, but its a difficult argument to make with "fastest, finger first" companies, until you could show that you were "on first name terms" with the allocators, and as such each job is more stand alone.

Boredupnorth

HappyMJ wrote: »

The council look at every entry on my accounts in detail. The rules are different but the council usually allows less expenses than the HMRC. They are more strict. I don't earn enough to pay tax so the HMRC leave me alone.

Until they audit you that is, then you will see who looks more closely at the numbers.

If your getting away with it now, then good luck to you, however, keep your fingers crossed that you are not one of the ones singled out for audit or you may find you have a “bit o bother on”

misssarahleigh

superliss wrote: »

Right then... hard nosed businessman. I hated the theme park. I only did it for the money.

I am so new to this... clearly.

I flipping well knew there was something just couldn't put my flipping finger on it.



http://blog.amaclean.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/old-spice-advert.jpg

Now, Superliss, you have a choice.

A. You really are a black man on a horse and the Old Spice advert is a crazy coincidence.

B. Your an actor who is dipping his toe into mystery shopping

C. Yopu stole the picci

D. An answer I have not yet thought off.

superliss

misssarahleigh wrote: »

I flipping well knew there was something just couldn't put my flipping finger on it.



http://blog.amaclean.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/old-spice-advert.jpg

Now, Superliss, you have a choice.

A. You really are a black man on a horse and the Old Spice advert is a crazy coincidence.

B. Your an actor who is dipping his toe into mystery shopping

C. Yopu stole the picci

D. An answer I have not yet thought off.

Hahaha! Strangely enough....the answer is C! I think my first choice would be A cos it would be cool to just get around on a white horse all day long. Can you imagine doing the MS burgers on that?

Boredupnorth

HappyMJ wrote: »

Then it's not worth working. If all of my expenses are disallowable then I would be losing money. I'm not working to lose money. Last year my income was £14,000 and the expenses were around £12,000. I declared a £2,000 profit. Due to low income I claim working tax credits and housing benefit of £9,000. So I lived on £11,000 plus free travel and free days out with meals included. If all of the £12,000 is not allowable then I could not afford to live and pay the bills.

If it’s not worth working then it’s not worth working!
From what you’re saying the tax man would take 2 minutes to rip apart your accounts, and then you’re liable for any tax you have avoided. Worse still they don’t stop there; they can investigate back up to 20 years and you’re liable for any further tax avoidance. Even worse still for you, if the difference takes you past the benefits threshold, the council can also come after you for what you would owe.

Where HMRC can show consistent tax avoidance they will prosecute and they don’t hold back.

Obviously if your getting away with it then your safe…..for now.

dazza.mk

HappyMJ wrote: »

Then it's not worth working. If all of my expenses are disallowable then I would be losing money. I'm not working to lose money. Last year my income was £14,000 and the expenses were around £12,000. I declared a £2,000 profit. Due to low income I claim working tax credits and housing benefit of £9,000. So I lived on £11,000 plus free travel and free days out with meals included. If all of the £12,000 is not allowable then I could not afford to live and pay the bills.

Not saying they will be, but if you were to say 'I do it for the free stuff' to a tax inspector (in the event they were ever audited) then it could happen, if you were to find the thread I referred to the starting position of the inspector who investigated the shopper was that all expenses were benefits in kind.

It was only on appeal that it was agreed that the expenses gave only an incidental benefit as described above, the argument being that the shopper bought the item in order to earn the fee, and the purchase was therefore 'incidental' to gaining the final fee. For reimbursement only jobs the argument collapses.

DevilsAdvocate1

dazza.mk wrote: »

Not saying they will be, but if you were to say 'I do it for the free stuff' to a tax inspector (in the event they were ever audited) then it could happen, if you were to find the thread I referred to the starting position of the inspector who investigated the shopper was that all expenses were benefits in kind.

It was only on appeal that it was agreed that the expenses gave only an incidental benefit as described above, the argument being that the shopper bought the item in order to earn the fee, and the purchase was therefore 'incidental' to gaining the final fee. For reimbursement only jobs the argument collapses.

It was after reading the case on MysteryShoppersUK that I decided not to take any reimbursement jobs at all. I do this as my full time job and end up paying tax.

I'd be comfortable arguing that the reimbursements are incidental because the number of jobs I take where there is any reimbursement at all is quite low. I mainly visit car dealships enquiring about cars. Sadly I have never been offered the chance to keep one!

I do jobs up to 50 miles from home. Usually I make a profit, but sometime I don't find other work to go with it and end up making a loss. Think this is going to happen on Friday of this week. I booked a job in 3 weeks ago thinking I'd be bound to get more work in that area but it just hasn't happened. I will put a note in my accounts to this effect.

Boredupnorth

HappyMJ wrote: »

Lucky for me then that I destroy all records as they become 6 years old. My records are not that detailed to record the difference between fees and reimbursements anyway. It's just a line in a spreadsheet.
1/8/11 Expense - High St. pub name reference MS051 £14.90 and a link to the scanned receipt.
15/8/11 Income - MS Company A reference MS051 £14.90
30/8/11 Mileage - 6 miles @ 45p £2.70

Good luck....your in a mine field

Becles

superliss wrote: »

Hahaha! Strangely enough....the answer is C! I think my first choice would be A cos it would be cool to just get around on a white horse all day long. Can you imagine doing the MS burgers on that?

Can you go through the drive-thru on a horse?

Would make the shopper notice board more interesting though, with several car pictures and a horse :rotfl: