In M Clunes v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 204 (19 December 2016) the FTT dismissed a privacy application by a well-known actor.
The issue of the substantive appeal was whether Mr Clunes a well-known actor was entitled to set off the cost of cosmetic treatment against his earnings. The procedural question was whether the appeal should be heard in private and the decision anonymised.
Mr Clunes argued that the public’s understanding of the substantive issue would not be enhanced if his identity was revealed but that his reputation would suffer. He suggested in particular that he may become the object of mockery.
The FTT noted however that the question was not whether all male actors should be entitled to deduct expenses incurred in cosmetic surgery but whether in the specific circumstances of Mr Clunes deduction should be...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In M Clunes v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 204 (19 December 2016) the FTT dismissed a privacy application by a well-known actor.
The issue of the substantive appeal was whether Mr Clunes a well-known actor was entitled to set off the cost of cosmetic treatment against his earnings. The procedural question was whether the appeal should be heard in private and the decision anonymised.
Mr Clunes argued that the public’s understanding of the substantive issue would not be enhanced if his identity was revealed but that his reputation would suffer. He suggested in particular that he may become the object of mockery.
The FTT noted however that the question was not whether all male actors should be entitled to deduct expenses incurred in cosmetic surgery but whether in the specific circumstances of Mr Clunes deduction should be...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
