400
submitted 1 week ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/til@lemmy.world

According to Abba: The Official Photo Book, published to mark 40 years since they won Eurovision with Waterloo, the band's style was influenced in part by laws that allowed the cost of outfits to be deducted against tax – so long as the costumes were so outrageous they could not possibly be worn on the street.

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 85 points 1 week ago

We have the same tax law in America. Can't deduct clothing that you could wear for non work.

[-] trolololol@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

I can't wear a suit if I'm not working. Sounds like claim time.

I also can't use suit while working. Ok I'll come clean, I don't have any suits.

[-] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

My aspie ass laughs at the squares in the tax office and their droll perspective on casual wear!

[-] Chee_Koala@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

You'll never believe this one crazy Swedish law that most modern tax codes also have!

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 1 week ago

You don’t know what I’m willing to wear on the street, Swedish tax laws!

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago

Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to wear normal clothes when you perform?

Or were they so broke that they wore their costumes as normal clothes “on the street”?

This isn’t making a lot of sense to me either way.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 6 days ago

They probably wanted nicer clothes than normal but were able to save more by springing for something that qualified for a deduction.

[-] Marx2k@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago

I prefer performers resemble superior race ambassadors from a yet undiscovered groovy exoplanet

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

I'm guessing they didn't pay for the costumes themselves. They just got to write off the cost because they were wearing them. But I don't know how it works for sure.

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Band member 1 makes a costume for band member 2. Material cost: $12. Band member 1 sells it to band member 2 for $15,000.

Band member 2 makes costume for band member 3...

Write off not just the materials cost, but the purchase price.

The costume making income is below the taxable income so it's not taxed.

Band income goes into a trust, rather than being paid directly to members. Members are all board members on the trust and get paid a salary.

And so it goes, round the washing machine of accounting.

[-] Zip2@feddit.uk 7 points 1 week ago

I think it’s a case of the outfits essentially being akin to a work uniform. You wouldn’t wear it on the street, and you need it for work (as I guess stage and screen actors do too), and due to that you can claim it as a work expense and is tax deductible?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I think that's it, yeah. This way they avoided paying tax on their costumes.

[-] Zip2@feddit.uk 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think it was even better than that. It wasn’t just the tax on the costume, it was the entire cost of them could be deducted from their tax bill. The more extravagant and expensive, the smaller that years tax bill!

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

There you go. Thanks for the explanation!

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

If someone else bought the costumes, then they certainly can’t write them off.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I think I figured it out!

They were going to have to wear costumes regardless, but they would be able to not pay taxes on them if the costumes were crazy enough.

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I appreciate the amount of thought you’ve put into this, while I just make cynical comments.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It made me start thinking about it and then it bothered me enough to try to figure it out.

As we often hear over in Lemmy Shitpost, "I know this is a shitpost, but..."

[-] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago

It really seems like these would be more expensive by more than the tax benefits

[-] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Not at all, Sweden during the ABBA age was completely nuts. There was no cap on taxes, and as such, you could incur a more than 100% marginal tax rate.

Astrid Lindgren (the beloved childrens book writer) was amongst those affected.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

@Zip2@feddit.uk explained it:

I think it was even better than that. It wasn’t just the tax on the costume, it was the entire cost of them could be deducted from their tax bill. The more extravagant and expensive, the smaller that years tax bill!

[-] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I've read the comment, but that's not how taxes usually work. (It is, however, like a lot of people with little knowledge about the topic think tax deductions in general work - which makes me suspicious)

It would take bit more of the than that comment at face value to convince me that apparent law exist(ed)

[-] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

Take those write-offs where you can, I get it

[-] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 week ago

Did the guardian cut off the article on accident?

There's this passage at the end of it that just doesn't seem to relate to the rest:

In 2007 Ulvaeus was wrongly accused of failing to pay 85m kronor (£7.9m) in Swedish taxes between 1999 and 2005, and went on to successfully appeal against the decision.

Like, OK, it is about taxes but specifically about the taxes on the stage clothes of the 70s/80s, so how does talking about his taxes between 99 and 05 add anything to the discussion?

[-] clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

Editors are clearly woke

[-] Chee_Koala@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Maybe that's how this smart tax strategy got uncovered?

[-] TurboHarbinger@feddit.cl 6 points 1 week ago

Why does this tax exists? For taxing ads? Like for promoting a clothes brand?

[-] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 week ago

I think you are missing the point. You can declare products you buy as a business expense, as long as they are used mostly for business purposes. In Swedish law, you can't declare clothing as a business expense because you will wear those clothes in you day to day life. The only exception is clothes that would look silly in day to day, like a clown suit, or mechanic overalls.

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
400 points (98.5% liked)

Today I Learned

17686 readers
863 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS