Lorraine Kelly

This seems a bit weird. In short, it appears a judge has ruled that Lorraine Kelly does not need to pay her tax bill as she is ‘acting’ the character of Lorraine Kelly…or something.

'The judge said that Kelly could be classed as a “theatrical artist”, which would mean any payments to an agent would be allowed as a tax-deductible expense.

Judge Dean said: "We did not accept that Ms Kelly simply appeared as herself - we were satisfied that Ms Kelly presents a persona of herself, she presents herself as a brand and that is the brand ITV sought when engaging her.

"All parts of the show are a performance, the act being to perform the role of a friendly, chatty and fun personality.

“Quite simply put, the programmes are entertaining, Ms Kelly is entertaining and the ‘DNA’ referred to is the personality, performance, the ‘Lorraine Kelly’ brand that is brought to the programmes.”

She added: "We should make clear we do not doubt that Ms Kelly is an entertaining lady but the point is that for the time Ms Kelly is contracted to perform live on air she is public ‘Lorraine Kelly’.

“She may not like the guest she interviews, she may not like the food she eats, she may not like the film she viewed but that is where the performance lies.”’

fucking hell what is this shit?

5 Likes

Implication is that she’s absolutely horrible offscreen right?

12 Likes

totally irrelevant though isn’t it?

Don’t understand this as most people are forced to behave unnaturally in their jobs where they are employed and pay tax

yeah this is obviously horrible tory bullshit but I do find it kind of funny that her defence was basically “oh no I’m an absolute weapon in real life, I only act like I’m a pleasant human being”

6 Likes

once again I’m proved right that you can’t trust an actor

All they do is lie about being someone else!!

I am definitely playing a different character at work, completely unrecognizable.

2 Likes

literally the purpose of that profession yes

1 Like

Lorraine Kelly has such a kindly voice

1 Like

I understand that bit, but what does that have to do with the whole ‘acting’ stuff? Why is that relevant? Is it something to do with different tax rules for being ‘performance artist’ rather than a presenter?

heard the name but not the voice.

Not interested in hearing it now

this has put me off Lorraine Kelly for life

2 Likes

There’s no implication that she doesn’t or hasn’t paid tax here, by the way.

Can’t work out if this is insulting or not

There was a lad who worked for us years ago called Baldeep who had Lorraine Kelly’s voice. Very soft, very kindly.

2 Likes

could have paid £1.2m but didn’t so fuck her

4 Likes

Isn’t paying an agent generally a business expense anyway? She either needs an agent or doesn’t, I’m not sure why that would be different for an actor or a presenter.

Obviously I know nothing about tax law.

1 Like

Right, I’m sure she’s looking at the tax bill she went to court to fight and has now been told she doesn’t have to pay and thinking “hmm, but maybe I should”

mad how many celebs and known rich people are total shits and how long we’ve just been like “oh well that’s the rich for you!”

1 Like