Lorraine Kelly

must be a good 90% of them

This isn’t some arcane loophole, though. It’s just the difference between paying employment taxes if you’re genuinely an employee or paying other taxes (e.g. corporation tax, income tax at the dividend rate, etc.) if you’re a contractor.

Lorraine Kelly is cancelled

Not even Scotch

She’s ripping off Nathan for You

The episode with the smokers allowed bar


I’m not sure, on the one hand, fuck paying someone such a mad amount of money to sit on a sofa talking bullshit for a few hours (admittedly with a very lovely voice), but on the other, no matter what someone earns I try not to hold them to a different standard. If HMRC classed me as the wrong type of employee id query it, so I don’t see why she can’t, as long as she’s not doing anything dodgy and is happy to pay her actual share.


how much does she earn to be able to get a tax bill for £1.2m if she was an employee?

I dread to think mate :grimacing: something grim anyway. But amount aside, I’d say people have the right to complain if they feel like they’ve been shafted as long as they’re not trying to cheat their way out of chipping in (if that’s what she’s doing then she can get straight in the bin and stay there obvs).

reckon if you earn say several million and you object to paying a million in taxes then you are already making a morally bad decision regardless of what the law says you can or cannot do

Ha yeah fair, but the headline could be misleading. It doesn’t say if she’s being let off paying the full 1.2 mill, or if that was the whole bill and if it was done correctly it would just be less. Don’t know why I’m still replying tbh I am absolutely not invested in defending Lorraine Kelly and her accountant :sweat_smile:

1 Like

She probably wants to donate it all to charity rather than hand it over to Theresa May.

Not really. Reckon she’s actually a low-level psychopath, like Eamonn Holmes.

1 Like

I have it on good authority via someone ITK that she is indeed a nightmare of a person in real life.

Agency fees are only deductible employment expenses for entertainers which is defined as an ‘actor, dancer, musician, singer or theatrical artist’ so she had to prove she was a theatrical artist.

1 Like

In the article she is described as a ‘brand’. Well, claiming that you are not necessarily being yourself and are acting the role of ‘public Lorraine Kelly’ when presenting may well damage that brand.

Tory TV presenter wins million pound tax case by claiming to be a lizard wearing human skin

The judge ruled that the presenter’s persona as a human being is a performance enabled by the human flesh suit they wear over their scaly skin

There was only ever one Brand (Yes man Baths RIP), well three if you include brother and sister double act Russell and Katy.

Erm…yer man Baggs

1 Like

Was going to say the other day I hate that advert where she dances

1 Like

Always knew she was a wrong’un