<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en-GB">
	<id>https://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=JaydenCollier</id>
	<title>Changeringing Wiki - User contributions [en-gb]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=JaydenCollier"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/Special:Contributions/JaydenCollier"/>
	<updated>2026-04-30T03:40:59Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.34.4</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Income_Tax_and_Wedding_Fees&amp;diff=1447</id>
		<title>Income Tax and Wedding Fees</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Income_Tax_and_Wedding_Fees&amp;diff=1447"/>
		<updated>2011-08-15T16:51:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;JaydenCollier: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
===Those Wedding Fees===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just in case you’re wondering why I’m writing this, I’d better explain that as well as being a ringer&lt;br /&gt;
I’m also a money person. I used to be one of the Central Council’s Independent Examiners - what most people&lt;br /&gt;
call, Auditors - and I do a lot of work with ringing and church accounts too. Professionally I also used to be a&lt;br /&gt;
rather senior Inspector of Taxes. So it’s not surprising that among the purely ringing questions people send me,&lt;br /&gt;
I also get a fair few money questions. And it’s those questions that this series is all about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''I’ve just read a most disturbing article about the burgeoning mountain of middle class crime, and I fear I am myself a pebble in that mountain. It’s four years since I started ringing for weddings, yet in all that time I haven’t declared a single wedding fee on my tax return. Small stabs of guilt are niggling me, so if you can give me absolution - or, better still, justification - I’d be really grateful.''''' SW - West Midlands&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By great good fortune I can give you both. But since, by your own admission, you’re middle class,&lt;br /&gt;
middle aged and - I suspect - a middle brow ringer to boot, you won’t &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;plainlinks&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.diamondlinks.net &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;link building service&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;] just want an answer, you’ll want an&lt;br /&gt;
explanation to go with it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The System===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So beginning at the beginning, in this country, tax - thank the Lord - is purely a matter of law. There&lt;br /&gt;
are no bribes and no extortion, and nothing you receive is taxable unless the law says it is.&lt;br /&gt;
But good though that is, tax law is unfortunately fantastically complex. The statutes themselves amount&lt;br /&gt;
to several thousand pages, whilst the judicial interpretation of all those pages fills dozens of stout volumes.&lt;br /&gt;
So if anyone tells you that your question is a simple one, don’t believe them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, it could be worse, because in a mere page or so, the law sets out a handful of categories that&lt;br /&gt;
a chunk of income must fall into if it’s to be taxable. And that’s because not all income is taxable. Gifts aren’t,&lt;br /&gt;
for example, nor are betting wins or the money you get for your old car when you buy a new one.&lt;br /&gt;
So we have to look at each taxing category in turn and see if wedding fees fall into it.&lt;br /&gt;
It’s rather like doing one of those Sunday newspaper puzzles. You ask yourself one question after another and keep ruling things out.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Is a wedding fee income from property?&amp;quot; No. &amp;quot;Is it interest on money?&amp;quot; No. &amp;quot;Is it a dividend from an overseas company?&amp;quot; No.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No trouble with any of those. They’re simple questions with simple answers and most of the other&lt;br /&gt;
questions are just as simple. But when you’ve eliminated all the simple ones, there are four questions left that&lt;br /&gt;
need Employment?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So first, are your wedding fees income from an employment? Are you in some way employed as a bell&lt;br /&gt;
ringer? And you ask yourself that question because, as I’m sure you know, for tax purposes almost all earned&lt;br /&gt;
income is divided into two categories: income from employment - often known as Pay as You Earn - and&lt;br /&gt;
income from sell-employment - often known as Pay as You Please. And once you’ve asked that question, it&lt;br /&gt;
won’t take you a moment to reply, “Of course I’m not employed as a bell ringer.” No ordinary ringer is. There is&lt;br /&gt;
no contract of employment and nor are there any features of the arrangement which could lead anyone to think&lt;br /&gt;
that an employer/employee relationship exists. Judges have spent a vast amount of time considering what might&lt;br /&gt;
or might not be considered an employment, but they’d take one look at this situation and say the answer’s just&lt;br /&gt;
plain obvious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, if you were employed as something else - a cathedral verger, say - and you had to ring for&lt;br /&gt;
weddings as part of your duties, your fees would be taxable, but that’s getting decidedly theoretical.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===An Office Holder?===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More obscurely, Schedule E - which is what the employment bit of tax law is technically called - also&lt;br /&gt;
applies to people who hold an “Office” and who get income from that “Office”. And I say “obscurely” because&lt;br /&gt;
no one’s entirely sure what an “Office” is. By and large, “Offices” are likely to be long-standing and vaguely&lt;br /&gt;
prestigious posts, or posts that exist under some form of written constitution - the sort of posts that seem to&lt;br /&gt;
exist whether someone fills them or not. The Master of the Queen’s Horse, for example,&lt;br /&gt;
or the Lord Lieutenant of the County, or the Ringing Master of an Association Closer to the mark, vicars were&lt;br /&gt;
always considered to hold an office - although there’s some doubt about that now - and church organists were looked&lt;br /&gt;
on similarly. So might ringers also be considered to be office holders?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, almost certainly not. In most churches the local band is a vague kind of thing. It has no fixed&lt;br /&gt;
size, no terms of appointment and no written or centuries-old constitution. Any tax inspector who tried to pin an&lt;br /&gt;
office on you would be quickly told to spend their time looking at something more sensible.&lt;br /&gt;
Just possibly - and I’m speaking entirely theoretically here - it could be suggested that one or two tower&lt;br /&gt;
captains hold an office. If so, their wedding fees would be taxable while the rest of the band’s wouldn’t be. But&lt;br /&gt;
that would be such a bizarre situation that no sensible tax inspector would try to suggest it. So on Schedule E&lt;br /&gt;
grounds, you’re safe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Self-Employed?===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But could you be self-employed? Could you have the trade or profession of “bell ringer”? Well, nothing in the&lt;br /&gt;
statutes says what a trade or profession is, and judges have spent a really huge amount of time over the past 100&lt;br /&gt;
years considering exactly that - normally when someone’s made a very large sum of money by buying and selling&lt;br /&gt;
something. Boiled right down, the test is whether you have arranged your affairs with the primary aim of making money,&lt;br /&gt;
or whether such money as you receive is just incidental to your private life or hobby. Quite clearly, wedding fees&lt;br /&gt;
fall in the latter category.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But if we’re just supposing, it’s possible that someone could organise themselves to ring at five&lt;br /&gt;
weddings every Saturday at £20 a time solely because they wanted the money, and it could then be suggested&lt;br /&gt;
that such a person was in trade. A tax inspector would have a distinctly uphill task trying to prove it, though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Case VI===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And you might think that that would be that, but unfortunately there’s also a small “catch everything&lt;br /&gt;
else” section called Case VI of Schedule D. It claims to tax, “... any annual profits or gains not falling under&lt;br /&gt;
any other Case of Schedule D and not charged by virtue of Schedule A or Schedule E ...“&lt;br /&gt;
And at first sight that looks like it could be a tricky one because surely a wedding fee must be some&lt;br /&gt;
kind of “profit or gain.” Well, you might think so, but while tax inspectors are rather fond of catch all&lt;br /&gt;
legislation, judges certainly aren’t, and over the years they’ve come to the rescue in severely limiting what Case VI&lt;br /&gt;
can catch. So first, only money received under an enforceable contract is taxable under Case VI, and&lt;br /&gt;
although contracts can be oral as well as written, it would be very difficult indeed to suggest that wedding&lt;br /&gt;
ringers have entered into a contract.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a start, it would be hard to pin down who the contract could be with - the church? The vicar? the&lt;br /&gt;
bride’s father? the best man? The tower captain? And secondly, the arrangements are so vague as to who rings,&lt;br /&gt;
when they ring and what they ring, that an enforceable contract could hardly be considered to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, lawyers are always happy to assert remote possibilities with each other, and I dare say that&lt;br /&gt;
at this very moment ringing lawyers all over the country are itching to put pen to paper with a counter view. But&lt;br /&gt;
tax inspectors are practical people not vague theorists, and they would readily agree that no contract exists.&lt;br /&gt;
And second, even if a contract did exist, you could still claim to set your expenses against the fees&lt;br /&gt;
received. Those expenses wouldn’t include your costs of going to practice nights or buying ringing books or&lt;br /&gt;
anything like that, but they would include travelling expenses, and with a little thought you could easily get&lt;br /&gt;
them large enough to wipe out your fee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Bottom Line===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the bottom line is, you’re safe. Your wedding fees are not taxable, they shouldn’t be included in&lt;br /&gt;
your tax return and you aren’t part of the middle class crime mountain. Of course, if you do include your fees on&lt;br /&gt;
your tax return the Revenue will tax them, because it’s their job to tax everything that gets put on tax returns.&lt;br /&gt;
But that will be your fault not theirs. And if sometime in the past you asked a tax person whether your wedding&lt;br /&gt;
fees were taxable, and you got the answer that they were, don’t feel cross. As I said earlier, tax isn’t simple, and&lt;br /&gt;
you need to have all the facts of any situation if you’re going to come to the right conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
Quite likely you didn’t give the person all the facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===In Practice===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, tax inspectors are much too busy tackling large scale evasion to bother about a handful of&lt;br /&gt;
wedding fees, so you’re most unlikely ever to be challenged about them. But from time to time a few ringers at&lt;br /&gt;
cathedrals and large churches have had a problem. Their church authorities have been handing out quite large&lt;br /&gt;
amounts of money to a variety of people - including professional musicians - and not deducting tax as they&lt;br /&gt;
should have done. When the tax inspector has sorted things out, the ringers’ wedding fees have been swept up&lt;br /&gt;
along with everything else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So if - just remotely if - a tax inspector wants to start taxing your fees - either through your tax return&lt;br /&gt;
or, more likely, by deduction - show them this article. If they still can’t agree, make a politely worded complaint&lt;br /&gt;
and show this article to their boss. And if their boss can’t agree, make an equally polite complaint to their Regional&lt;br /&gt;
Office. That, at least, should sort it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Absolution is yours!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve is happy to answer all other Ringing and Money questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
#Ringing and Money by Steve Coleman, [[The Ringing World]], Issue 4991/92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Articles]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>JaydenCollier</name></author>
		
	</entry>
</feed>