|
|
Posted by Charles Sweeney on 08/03/06 23:42
William Tasso wrote
> Fleeing from the madness of the No thank you jungle
> Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> stumbled into
> news:alt.html,alt.www.webmaster
> and said:
>
>> dorayme wrote
>>
>>> In article <MrQ98131121791B6itsmeitsQ@QsFQDN.dyndns.org>,
>>> »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Does clicking the page not work in your browser?
>>>
>>> Define "work"
>>
>> Then pass it to the Inland Revenue.
>
> Talking of the (spit) Inland (spit) Revenue ... there's serious debate
> (in th UK) about parking 'fines' being in reality a revenue stream -
> a regular 'hot topic' to use the modern idiom.
>
> I'm sure we all put them down as expenses on our returns only for the
> accountant to credit them out because fines cannot be tax deductable -
> however were it to be successfully argued that these costs are a
> useful revenue stream (for the recipient) then we have grounds to
> insist they are seen as such on our tax returns.
Interesting. Not meaning to be a goody-two-shoes, and not living in a
City...I don't get parking fines!
The inland revenue would probably say that if it's a necessary expense
required to conduct your business, then it's an allowable expense. I
suppose you could make an argunebt that it is,
> Note: I hate the f*cking idiotic games one has to play when dealing
> with these clowns.
Yep.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|