Mystery Shopping Thread 23 *PLEASE READ THE OP FIRST**PLEASE NO CLIENT NAMES OR FEES

mskitten2904

money_savings_my_game wrote: »

haha maybe
It's just that I read how many trips everyone's doing and it really inspires me to get off my tush and join lots of companies and search for visits daily but nothing ever comes up anywhere remotely near me (apart from MF like I said). Maybe I need to move!

Have you checked out some of the companies on the first page because quite a few on there? Plus fieldstar has a lot on there website, it's free to sign up x

money_savings_my_game

N.I.M wrote: »

React might have some work down your way, or tern possibly.

Thanks for that. I'll give the second one a try. Previous posts have made be wary of the the former! *Tries hard not to mention names* :rotfl:

money_savings_my_game

mskitten2904 wrote: »

Have you checked out some of the companies on the first page because quite a few on there? Plus fieldstar has a lot on there website, it's free to sign up x

Yep, I'm signed up to quite a few now. But perhaps its still not enough! Will try that one too, hopefully I'll get some visits near me so I can achieve the holy grail of doing more than one visit in a day :T

Really appreciate the help x

Workie_Ticket

money_savings_my_game wrote: »

Thanks for that. I'll give the second one a try. Previous posts have made be wary of the the former! *Tries hard not to mention names* :rotfl:

You may be mixing RA (Retail Active) with React (React Surveys).

dazza.mk

Lil_Me wrote: »

See I wouldn't say that link was really related. That's more to do with travelling on business. The link basically says that if you're away from home (say for a meeting the next morning the other side of the country) and you eat out you can't say "Well if I was at home a typical meal would have cost me £3, and since I have to pay £10 to eat out as I'm not at home I'll claim £7 as an expense". Reality is that you could probably eat somewhere cheaper so it's personal choice to eat somewhere that charges £10 instead of £3.

You're focusing a bit too much upon the detail , critical statement is really :

"… It is not without significance that in the present case the taxpayer does not claim the whole of the cost of his lunch as an allowable expense, but only part of the cost. This attempt to apportion discloses the duality of purpose that is fatal under [what is now ICTA88/S74 (1)(a)]. It is not possible to divide up a meal or the expense of a meal so that the first sandwiches or the first 10p. are attributable to Mr. Quinn and the residue to his business."

You could apply the above directly to your example £30 Mystery Shopping company £5 Me.....

If you'd claimed it all that wouldn't be an issue (of course if you could claim it all is a separate discussion).

TractorGirl327

DPJames wrote: »

Weeg, what y'talking about man? This has been the most entertaining thread yet. We can't talk about tax and psychic banks all the time y'know.

What's a new thread going to do? I'm not going anywhere. Just get your boss to lighten up and remind The Gang to stick me on their ignore lists (again).

Oh rest assured, Darren, you are going straight back on my ignore list. Maybe you could do the same for me so that our paths never have the misfortune to cross again.

Big_Graeme

If anyone has been offended or upset by anything I've posted in the last few days then I apologise unreservedly.

Big_Graeme

Just done my first TNS quicky supermarket on SASSIE, apart from a stupid character limit in the text boxes they have made it even easier to complete them now, no emailing receipts either.

TractorGirl327

Big_Graeme wrote: »

If anyone has been offended or upset by anything I've posted in the last few days then I apologise unreservedly.

Same goes for me. With one obvious exception who I sincerely hope I HAVE offended and offer no apologies at all :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Lil_Me_2

dazza.mk wrote: »

You're focusing a bit too much upon the detail , critical statement is really :

"… It is not without significance that in the present case the taxpayer does not claim the whole of the cost of his lunch as an allowable expense, but only part of the cost. This attempt to apportion discloses the duality of purpose that is fatal under [what is now ICTA88/S74 (1)(a)]. It is not possible to divide up a meal or the expense of a meal so that the first sandwiches or the first 10p. are attributable to Mr. Quinn and the residue to his business."

You could apply the above directly to your example £30 Mystery Shopping company £5 Me.....

If you'd claimed it all that wouldn't be an issue (of course if you could claim it all is a separate discussion).

But could you do so for different items? So the sandwiches are for the business, but the crisps are personal?

Like I said for any other business you could overcome that by making two separate transactions, but it would be too obvious in our line of work.

And here was me thinking I was being nice to the tax man by minimising my expenses for jobs!