[Closed] Have we done Lorraine Kelly...

I think it's a tax loophole that's done us rather than "Lorraine Kelly" and her onscreen persona.

I just read about this - it's an utter joke.

But I now have this wonderful vision of Lorraine Kelly in real life talking like Droopy & being utterly miserable.

I think I preferred Sean Connery's Lorraine Kelly, but hope they give it to Idris Elba next time.

I think it’s a tax loophole that’s done us rather than “Lorraine Kelly” and her onscreen persona.

Can't really argue with that, but really - her tax bill was £1.2m. FFS.

I think I preferred Sean Connery’s Lorraine Kelly, but hope they give it to Idris Elba next time.

I think Idris would make an excellent Lorraine Kelly. I'd cast Kathy Burke as Piers Morgan too.

I recollect some super wealthy "self made" type once saying you'll never get really rich working for someone else.If Lorraine's tax bill drops by £1.2 million by switching from employed to self employed then that assertion makes sense.It's just all us PAYE mugs who pick up the slack.

Can I get a tax rebate for being 'a persona of myself' at work?
I'm usually quite cheery and upbeat - I'm just a miserable b*****d at work!

I didn't really get the reference to the "theatrical" point that was being made. Is there a specific tax category for this type of role? Isn't it just a case of the fact that she is either employed by ITV or she is self employed / Limited Company type of position?
Unless specifically tied in to work for ITV, I don't get how she could be employed by them as a PAYE person? Surely there is a contract between her (or her company) and this is laid out within that contract?
She earns a large sum of money for sure, but the tax she pays she be based on her contract and the tax regulations for a person in her position. I don't think its fair to say she should be PAYE and taxed the same as you or I, we don't have anywhere near enough information to make that decision.
Almost like saying if she floats she's a witch, burn the witch, burn the witch.

I imagine there is a whole raft of celebs, sportmen/women who use similar tax avoidance vehicles.

I’m thrilled that she’s won.

What would the Government do with a spare million?

Give it to Grayling to piss it away  on some useless Brexit plan.

I’d rather Lorraine used it to spend on cakes.

You have to applaud HMRC for thier efforts haven’t you.

🤷‍♂️

I imagine there is a whole raft of celebs, sportmen/women who use similar tax avoidance vehicles.

I imagine there are a large number of contractors earning far less money who are not working to IR35 rules and have no intention of doing so, but is that ok if you earn £30k?

IR35 has caused problems in the NHS with many doctors now no longer willing to do extra sessions due to the IR35 rule change. ie why would you agree to work another 4 hrs when you have already done 60 that week, and the tax man will take over 50% of that 4hrs payment

Isn’t it just a case of the fact that she is either employed by ITV or she is self employed / Limited Company type of position?
Unless specifically tied in to work for ITV, I don’t get how she could be employed by them as a PAYE person? Surely there is a contract between her (or her company) and this is laid out within that contract?
She earns a large sum of money for sure, but the tax she pays she be based on her contract and the tax regulations for a person in her position.

She's a contractor, ITV pay her company, which in turn supplies Lorraine to jabber on the box as a caricature of herself, makes perfect sense.

What the company pays Lorraine is between her and the company (her own company), I expect she's on close to minimum wage I know a couple of contractors who 'earn' much more than they 'pay themselves' via their company...

Of course the company will have to pay corporation tax, etc so 'We' (HMRC) will get something, and she'll be limited on what she can do with cash held in a company without incurring tax liabilities for personal expenses. But I'm sure it's all above board...

but is that ok if you earn £30k?

Not from April 2020 it's not mere mortals will be taxed at source otherwise the hiring company pays it

We should probably try to keep this to legitimate discussion about taxation policy chaps, and stay away from the personal sexual slights against Ms Kelly.

<mod>
Can we lose the crude / sexist comments please? We're better than that (and frankly I've better things to do than sitting here deleting comments all day). If you can't play nicely we'll close the thread.
</mod>

she doesn't get holidays, doesn't get sick pay, doesn't get a pension - so not really the same as 'employed' even if hmrc try to say you are with IR35.

stay away from the personal sexual slights against Ms Kelly

They were slights against her online persona, so ok really.

Can I get a tax rebate for being ‘a persona of myself’ at work?

Can I get a tax rebate for being a parody of myself at work?

As ever, the problem is poorly drafted legislation and regulations, and the fact that rich people pay clever people more for finding loopholes than the government pays them to close them.

It's no bloody wonder the country's services have gone down the pan, when multi-million squid celebrities can dodge £1.2million tax bills through dodgy loopholes.

Income Tax rules need to be re-written, everyone should be taxed on everything they receive as income above £12.5k from the next financial year.

Income Tax rules need to be re-written, everyone should be taxed on everything they receive as income above £12.5k from the next financial year.

Given that the next financial year starts in about two weeks, I doubt that's going to happen.

It's not just tax though, all of our systems are riddled with holes and issues.
Just look at the Brexit mess....
The SNP Indy mess.....
Etc, etc....
As I have said before many times MrsT was(now retired) a fairly senior civil servant and her retirement was hastened by how poor and disgusted she had become with the way her department and the Scot Gov are heading.

I must admit I'm fairly nonplussed by this case. I mean the details seem fairly specious (Lorraine Kelly versus the character known as Lorraine Kelly, wtf) but given that celebrities such as her can be working for a number of employers simultaneously it would seem appropriate for them to set themselves up as a company to manage things better.

It's no different to the Ltd company contractors that work throughout industry and miles better than those folk who used that loan scheme that has been closed down now.

Income Tax rules need to be re-written, everyone should be taxed on everything they receive as income above £12.5k from the next financial year.

Given that the next financial year starts in about two weeks, I doubt that’s going to happen.

Posted 8

That will depend on where you live.
There was a "debate" on here many years ago regards affording to work, how far you travel, should you move closer to your work place and how much that all costs.
A few years ago MrsT took a "city" job. If it worked out as she "planned" I was to move up, get a new job etc.
We were potentially giving up a detached 3 bed bungalow within biking distance of work to then maybe affording a 3 bed semi an hour from anywhere for not much more ££££££££

 

As I understand it she claimed that her payments to an agent were a business expense as the agent was to all intents her sales force. Presumably that agent paid tax on those earnings.

My mate did Lorraine Kelly when he was a student; if that helps...😁😁

I didn’t really get the reference to the “theatrical” point that was being made. Is there a specific tax category for this type of role?

'theatrical' is possibly the wrong word. In the business you'd refer to someone in her role as 'the talent'. In a drama you'd have an actor and you know to great extent that the reason many people choose to tune in is to watch that actor act. On a news broadcast or a weather forecast you'd have a presenter - they are delivering the product but they're not the product - people aren't tuning in just to watch the presenter present.

In between that you get 'personalities' who aren't entertainers in the traditional sense, but they are the reason the viewers are watching. A big clue to that can be that persons name being in the title of the programme.

For instance if a programme is called 'Lorraine' or 'Tonight with Jonathan Ross' or 'Extreme Fisting with Robson Green'. So in the theatrical sense they have Top Billing and a cut of the 'box office' in the sense that their remuneration reflects the success/ audience figures / ad revenue that their name draws.

There’s no doubt she’s overpaid… (edit: not her tax, just generally)

It depends on how you define 'overpaid' - it implies that the person paying is getting less than the paid for. But they're paying her with the intention of getting a return on their investment and in an open market they are paying more than (or at least the market value is set by) their competitors who'd also like a slice of that ad revenue if they could get it.

Tom Cruise is very hightly paid but theres a very high return on the investment so he's not overpaid. I'm not sure who currently has the title of most overpaid celebrity. It used to be Will Ferrell - while there are plenty of stars commanding higher fees than him but for a while at least he had the lowest box office returns measured proportionality against his fee.

I think the reasoning is fair enough to be honest.

But I’m sure it’s all above board…

If it's not someone like Mrs Sandwich will sort it out in around 10 years time.

Come the revolution I'd have her head in a basket pretty damn quick!

A u-turn from the OP after the first reply?

Maybe think before posting?

Come the revolution I’d have her head in a basket pretty damn quick!

What's wrong with scampi?

Have we done Lorraine Kelly…

Possibly. She looks a little familiar, but it was the 1990s.

It's a nice loophole, is she a performer or a chirpy lass on telly? I used to work with opera singers who arguably invested more in their careers daily than LK.

Do I think that she should pay more tax? Definitely.

‘Extreme Fisting with Robson Green’.

Gosh, he must’ve fallen on hard times...

A u-turn from the OP after the first reply?

Maybe think before posting?

Are you new here?

FWIW, yes it's the tax laws that are the issue, but how much money do you need when you are trying not to pay £1.2m in tax (or extra tax - whatever)?

She didn't have to claim it back, and I'm pretty sure she wouldn't be forced into claiming universal credits and pimping her alter-ego out for sex had she not done it.

how much money do you need when you are trying not to pay £1.2m in tax (or extra tax – whatever)?

How much money of the money that you've legally earned should be withheld from you?

I bet LK’s tax avoidance is chicken feed compared to what people like Murdoch, Rothermere, Barclay Bros have avoided paying over the years - and I guess they’re just the tip of the iceberg.  Isn’t it funny how the current Government and their backers are trying to get us out of the EU just as the latter are bringing in new regs on tax avoidance and offshore tax havens?!

If the usual newspapers are going after LK, I guess it’s another little diversion for them - bunch of self serving hypocrites.

This story is about HMRC sending LK a bill for £1.2mln that she was legally not due to owe.
IR35 and HMRC's interpretation/implementation of it are the root of all such problems like this.

LK will have paid corporation tax on Ltd Co profits, VAT, income tax on an salary/dividends recieved from the company. She's probably already paid significantly more tax than everyone posting here.
HMRC, in trying to claim she was a disguised employee, were then asking for NI and additional income tax on top of what she's already paid.

It's all well and good saying that everyone should be taxed the same; but not everyone works the same - so why should they?

IR35 is the problem.

They were trying to say that she was nothing more than a 'disguised employee' and therefore should be subject to the same type of taxation as for an employee, minus a paltry 5% allowance for paying accountants, etc.

But she clearly wasn't the same as an employee - no holiday, sickness or pension, no employment once those shows were finished, etc.

There are many IT contractors that are not much different to an employee, except for the rights listed above, and IR35 was designed to stop these people paying themselves minimum wage and the rest in dividends, but saying that 95% of your turnover must be taxed like a normal PAYE employee is far too harsh as it doesn't allow you any room for training costs, buffereing the fact that, if you are properly contracting, you might not have full employment, etc.

It's a screw up of a law.

There's nothing wrong with U-Turning in a thread! It makes a bleedin change on here (The Internet)

There are many IT contractors that are not much different to an employee, except for the rights listed above, and IR35 was designed to stop these people paying themselves minimum wage and the rest in dividends,

To be fair, that is quite a significant 'except'.

However, I'm a contractor and am happy to admit that some of the tax advantages could be quite legitimately looked at and closed down. IR35 though is a steamhammer to crack a nut.