Hi Anne, This deserved a long answer - which I have sent to you 'off-list' in an attempt to prevent everybody else here from dying of boredom :)
(For anyone interested I suggest starting at: <http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM33101.htm>) Regards, Trevor Anne Coleman wrote: >> Yeeees, but my point is that once we allow ourselves to be moved away >> > >from simple words with simple meanings, then centuries of our history as > >> a nation, with all of its ancient legal documents - such as Magna Carta, >> with all of the rights and responsibilities it laid down on our country >> - may as well be hauled to the city dump and burnt :( >> > > OK How about 'ship' then? > The tax office used to accept that you were entitled to the > seafarer's deduction if you were employed aboard a vessel which had a > mode of propulsion other than muscles, and which visited a foreign port. > > Then along came the Health and safety executive, who, for H&S > purposes ruled that ships exploiting or exploring for oil and gas > would be treated as 'offshore installations' as that meant stricter > H&S rules. This legislation meant to ensure better working > conditiions for employees on North Sea oil vessels has now been used > to deny the seafarers deduction to people who navigate across the > Atlantic in what to everyone else but the H&S are obviously 'ships' > to service oilfields in brazil! > > Anne C > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
