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.”’
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”
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?
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.
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”