Mystery Shopping Thread 21 *PLEASE READ THE OP FIRST**PLEASE NO CLIENT NAMES OR FEES*

HappyMJ

misssarahleigh wrote: »

Why didn't you just say that in the first place.

I'm sure the tax man will understand. It's not that you made a mistake in not paying the correct tax. You just chose not to because you can't spare the £30 to enjoy yourself at a swank hotel.

(that is exactly how they will see it. And I have a hard time contemplating how you will convince them otherwise.)

I wouldn't call it swank.... It is more of a pub with some rooms.

misssarahleigh

HappyMJ wrote: »

I wouldn't call it swank.... It is more of a pub with some rooms.

Still. Unless you can prove that your stay in some way/shape/form gave you potential access to FEE paying jobs, and you did it only for this purpose, they will be all over you like a rash.

marvellousaunt

misssarahleigh wrote: »

Still. Unless you can prove that your stay in some way/shape/form gave you potential access to FEE paying jobs, and you did it only for this purpose, they will be all over you like a rash.

To be fair to HappyMJ, the first reason given was 'to hopefully get more work' - I've got some rubbish jobs in my accounts with massive mileage that I did because I was personally asked and because I feel that saying yes to companies will get more work. I do think that's fair.

The bit that is more concerning is the £35 per week deduction - see this page on HMRC: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-household.htm

You can claim over £3 a week but you'll have to justify it. That's across all self-employed/work at home income, not just MS.

HappyMJ

marvellousaunt wrote: »

The bit that is more concerning is the £35 per week deduction - see this page on HMRC: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-household.htm

You're right sorry about that...just brought up the justification page I made a few years ago and it includes the phone and broadband costs. That's £7 of the £35. They aren't on top as I said earlier.

borders

HappyMJ wrote: »

I'll take the risk.... I do the work primarily for the hours. I must do 30 hours a week to get working tax credits. My main job is 16 to 24 hours a week so I need a minimum of another 6 hours per week. Doing the hotel job added enough hours that week to get me over the threshold.

.

Not wanting to worry anyone but was there not a post recently about HMRC doing checks on SE workers claiming tax credits?

Might not have been on this forum. Have certainly seen some posts on the tax forum about this. And some SE workers have lost tax credits because they couldnt prove their hours/income/expenses. Be wary.

It's an ongoing debate and I can agree with the reasoning behind claiming it all as a taxable expense. The problem is that the tax man probably wont agree. I certainly wouldnt want to argue it, if they do decide to check your accounts. And I certainly wouldnt want them taking a wider interest in my affairs, which is likely to happen if they find something they're not happy with.

Boredupnorth

This entire conversation has been had before with HappyMJ, he seems proud that he is screwing us all....either that or very stupid. I, like most, want to pay has little tax as I can, however, I, like most, pay what I have to and pay it on time. I would happily inform HMRC of any fool that is so smug about fiddling the system and hope that they screw him as hard as he is screwing the country. What is being done here is not only illegal but is also immoral, I for one hope that you get caught out and end up paying it all back
.

Boredupnorth

borders wrote: »

Not wanting to worry anyone but was there not a post recently about HMRC doing checks on SE workers claiming tax credits?

Might not have been on this forum. Have certainly seen some posts on the tax forum about this. And some SE workers have lost tax credits because they couldnt prove their hours/income/expenses. Be wary.

It's an ongoing debate and I can agree with the reasoning behind claiming it all as a taxable expense. The problem is that the tax man probably wont agree. I certainly wouldnt want to argue it, if they do decide to check your accounts. And I certainly wouldnt want them taking a wider interest in my affairs, which is likely to happen if they find something they're not happy with.

Lets hope they check HappyMJ's accounts then we can see how smug he is then.

Citysam

Lawpf2001 wrote: »

Is anyone having problems logging into RE? Haven't been able to get on for like the last 3 days.

I am having trouble logging in too! (I am not a regular poster here, but just popped on to see if its just me). Mine has also been for a few days on and off - I need to check the timeframe for a job I am doing today grrr xx

Lawpf2001

Citysam wrote: »

I am having trouble logging in too! (I am not a regular poster here, but just popped on to see if its just me). Mine has also been for a few days on and off - I need to check the timeframe for a job I am doing today grrr xx

When I try login it tries to load but then dumps me back at the front page. I tried the 'forgot my password' but it came back saying that there was no account with my email address on their database. I assumed they may have deleted my account as I had an issue with one of my assignments but its reassuring its not just me, as they owe me money.

dazza.mk

marvellousaunt wrote: »

To be fair to HappyMJ, the first reason given was 'to hopefully get more work' - I've got some rubbish jobs in my accounts with massive mileage that I did because I was personally asked and because I feel that saying yes to companies will get more work. I do think that's fair.

Marvellousaunt, to be personally asked by an allocator to take on a loss making job you've got the beginning of an argument that you're building relationships for future work (or possibly specific agreements for future work based on taking the one rubbish job).

We all want to arrange our MS affairs to ensure that we pay the minimum amount of tax possible (tax avoidance - perfectly legal) , but not Tax evasion (illegal).