Claiming Youtube subscription as an expense

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] said:

Curiousguy said:

It appears the OP pays the subscription because he grew tired of seeing adverts. I'm afraid I don't see any trade purpose.

Having got distracted and annoyed by those adverts when trying to learn stuff from youtube, I can completely see why a subscription might be wholly for the purposes of the trade.  It's much more efficient to learn things undistracted both in terms of time taken, recall of what's being watched and also not be distracted to do something else on the other screen while the advert is on. 

If once in a blue moon I wateched something else on youtube and didn't get an advert, that's an incidental benefit and so doesn't mean I have to disallow it - https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim37400

Same with ChatGPT.  I have it on a screen most of the time as it helps me code and understand various concepts.  That would be completely deductible even if I asked it the odd random question about something not related to work.  

We will have to agree to disagree. I believe that your link primarily alludes to car and travel expenses. Perhaps another of the former tax inspectors on here may have a different opinion?

[Deleted User]

It's the purpose of the expenditure which determines whether is allowable, not the effect.

The purpose here is to avoid adverts, the effect is you are not distracted. 

On a separate note I wouldn't rely on ChatGPT to give the right answers on any subject having read a recent Tax Tribunal decision.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] said:

Curiousguy said:

On a separate note I wouldn't rely on ChatGPT to give the right answers on any subject having read a recent Tax Tribunal decision.

I think some of the issue in that decision was due to the appellant not having sufficient tax experience to represent herself.  You also assume that it was ChatGPT but neither the tribunal nor Mrs Harber confirmed that.  I certainly rely on ChatGPT more and more and the current version is way better than 3.5.  I use it for some tax stuff where I don't have too much knowledge.  For areas I know well, it does a surprisingly good job (but still has a way to go). 

As a student without a youtube subscription, I can't claim a tax deduction for it.  If I wasn't, did have and it was relevant to my trade, I would be comfortable claiming a deduction because its purpose would be to allow me to work more productively.  That the adverts are not shown is just a happy side effect. 

*** Regenerate reponse *** 

Please be assured when reading the Harber decision I did not make any assumptions. My opinion on the use of ChatGPT comes from what the Tribunal said about the USA case where it was used and generated fake caselaw.

I certainly would not use ChatGPT where my knowledge of any matter, let alone tax, was incomplete.

I don't agree that there was an issue because Mrs Harber was unrepresented. The tribunal heard her oral evidence, established the facts and applied the correct legislation and caselaw.

On the YouTube subscription matter my view is that being distracted by adverts is a personal problem and expenditure motivated by the desire to eliminate a personal issue isn't for the purposes of the trade.

If removal of the adverts results in more efficient working; that is effect.

[Deleted User]

Good that you're finding it useful.

We've gone off the topic of this thread but felt I should say that I've spent a bit of time this morning reading to find out more about  ChatGPT.

I'll stay with trusted information sources for now but you have persuaded me to keep an open mind and to monitor what it can do going forward.

Jeremy535897

[Deleted User] said:

dllive said:

Thanks all, very helpful.

I dont use Youtube for entertainment (I use Spotify, or BBC). Having said that, now Im paying for a Youtube sub, I may start to. Ill see how it goes. If I use Youtube 30% of the time (ie: in the evenings) I will claim 70% as a business expense. 

That reminds me, yesterday I subbed to ChatGPT. I was using the free version for work, but the results were pretty poor, so I decided to bite the bullet and see if the paid version was better. Ill be claiming that as an expense. (again, if I find I use it in my personal life I will proportion accordingly).

Not sure that you have got this. If there is any private element of this subscription it is NOT exclusively for business purposes and not deductible. 

I think HMRC would accept an apportionment. In far off days, we religiously disallowed line rental, but allowed a business percentage of calls, because you could say which individual calls were business, but you had to have the line rental whatever the business percentage was. It was a daft rule, similar to arguing that a replaced gearbox is disallowed because you couldn't point to an individual bit of the gearbox that dealt with business miles only.

[Deleted User]

Jeremy535897 said:

[Deleted User] said:

dllive said:

Thanks all, very helpful.

I dont use Youtube for entertainment (I use Spotify, or BBC). Having said that, now Im paying for a Youtube sub, I may start to. Ill see how it goes. If I use Youtube 30% of the time (ie: in the evenings) I will claim 70% as a business expense. 

That reminds me, yesterday I subbed to ChatGPT. I was using the free version for work, but the results were pretty poor, so I decided to bite the bullet and see if the paid version was better. Ill be claiming that as an expense. (again, if I find I use it in my personal life I will proportion accordingly).

Not sure that you have got this. If there is any private element of this subscription it is NOT exclusively for business purposes and not deductible. 

I think HMRC would accept an apportionment. In far off days, we religiously disallowed line rental, but allowed a business percentage of calls, because you could say which individual calls were business, but you had to have the line rental whatever the business percentage was. It was a daft rule, similar to arguing that a replaced gearbox is disallowed because you couldn't point to an individual bit of the gearbox that dealt with business miles only.

I still don't accept there's a trade purpose to expenditure removing adverts from YouTube.

BIM 37500 outlines the HMRC position that expenditure on subscriptions remains a question of purpose and are only allowable if they are incurred for the purposes of the trade and no other reason. It goes on to say many subscriptions are made from motives that are too general or personal to justify a deduction.

[Deleted User]

The rules on professional fees are clear.

On the costs of expenditure motivated by a desire to avoid distraction what matters is the immediate purpose of the expenditure.

It is not sufficient that the expenditure results in an advantage for the trade.

I have nothing more to add but recognise that others may have a different opinion.

prowla

If the YT vids are being used for business information/training, then adverts would be disruptive and time-consuming; that suggests that removing them would be a valid business purpose.