ICAEW membership fee

I recently applied for membership to the ICAEW, and had to pay about £460 in initial membership joining fee. My firm were not keen to reimburse me for this for P11d reasons, thought they paid the sub element.

Does anybody know if I can claim tax relief on this, or do I graciously accept this lovely joining present? (It seems wholly, exclusively and neccesarily to me)
NB
Nigel Brown

Comments

Hansard, 6 November 1986

andymeeson |

In an answer to a PQ about nurses' registration fees, a Treasury minister gave an answer which covered the general position re what later became ICTA 1988 s.201 and is now ITEPA ss.343 et seq:

"No relief is allowable, however, under these provisions for initial registration fees. This follows the general principle of the Schedule E expenses rules that relief is not given for expenses incurred to put a person in a position to perform the duties of an employment, and I do not think it would be appropriate to make a special exception for nurses" (my emphasis).

So the answer is a resounding NO. The initial fee is not expended in the performance of the duties of the employment, so not within the scope of s.343.

Off the top of my head..

AnonymousUser |

..are we not looking at the wrong section here. Should we not be looking at the professional subs one (whatever it is now - was s201 ish??). Is the wholly and exclusively not a red herring in that context?

ICAEW Membership

Anonymous |

Cause Nigel is a HKICPA graduate who obtained ICAEW membership through freebie route.

listerramjet's picture

hi neil

listerramjet |

"Do you have a contractual requirement that you join ICAEW? This would be unusual. Without it, how can the joining fee be neccesarily incurred?"

but if your job requires that you are ICAEW and you have a joining fee to pay then the cost of that is necessarily incurred to secure that job. I think that this applies to most newly qualifieds?

There is no benefit to being ICAEW qualified apart from employment as an ICAEW - so the cost meets the "wholly and exclusively" test.

I only ask - I have no idea as to the correct answer, even accounting for the fact that the taxing authorities keep moving the goalposts!

No 'Joke' splendid idea

AnonymousUser |

Why didn't I thought of Capt JO Ker idea all these while.

I better write to my Institute's CEO about this splendid idea.

Could there be any tax implication affecting the institutes by doing so? Please let me know and I will also inform my Institute's CEO for good.

The answer is

Anonymous |

I think that anyone who is a member of ICAEW, even if only recent, should know the answer!

Even if you don't you should know enough from what you have learned to be able to make an intelligent guess.

I am a member, and I know, why don't you? Or, like A-levels, are ICAEW's current requirements also dumbed down?

No

AnonymousUser |

Simply put - but I am sure a good number of people claim them as they believe any subs are allowed.

It's so much easier...

Anonymous |

...when you've got your own firm, and you definitely know what to do with them. But by then you're wondering why you're paying your fees to such an irrelevent organisation anyway. But then you remember, it's because you want to be 'Chartered' (though most of your clients don't care anyway), so that's alright then.

Damn, I'm bitter about this.

I also know, Mr RoARger Tiger

AnonymousUser |

You don't have to boast at all, Mr RoARger. I also know, even I belong to the one association "de-listed" from HKICPA recognition in 2003.

I think those who don't know the answer don't deserve to join ICAEW direct membership. This makes the difference founded in that membership body which carries "freebies" registration with ICAEW.

Ask CIPFA or CIMA members. They will tell you the answer.

Future ICAEW member don't know?

i am very bitter too, Andy.

RoARRRRRRRRRR.

Wholly, exclusively and neccesarily?

neileg |

Do you have a contractual requirement that you join ICAEW? This would be unusual. Without it, how can the joining fee be neccesarily incurred?

Even the wholly and exclusively bit seems a bit unlikely to me.

Ideal would be this ................

AnonymousUser |

For all future MRAs, MRDs, please ensure that there is waiver of the application fee.

What need to be paid by future members under MRA/MRD should be the yearly subscriptions.

The respective bodies can propose a "higher" than normal first year subscription fees for MRA/MRD applications. This higher than normal subscription fees should offset the "deficit" caused by no application fees.

Splendid idea I have indeed.

Any challenges from the floor?

You're welcome.