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.
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.
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.
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.
If someone else bought the costumes, then they certainly can’t write them off.
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.
I appreciate the amount of thought you’ve put into this, while I just make cynical comments.
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…”
It really seems like these would be more expensive by more than the tax benefits
@[email protected] 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!
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)
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.
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?
I think that’s it, yeah. This way they avoided paying tax on their costumes.
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!
There you go. Thanks for the explanation!
They probably wanted nicer clothes than normal but were able to save more by springing for something that qualified for a deduction.
I prefer performers resemble superior race ambassadors from a yet undiscovered groovy exoplanet
We have the same tax law in America. Can’t deduct clothing that you could wear for non work.
You’ll never believe this one crazy Swedish law that most modern tax codes also have!
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.
LOL wut?! Quote me chapter and verse please, actual law, case law or tax code.
Y’all really believe anything anyone says as long as it conforms to your preexisting beliefs, don’t ya? Dunno, sounds like a rather conservative mindset to me.
LOL wut?! Quote me chapter and verse please, actual law, case law or tax code.
Uniforms are tax deductible… The point of it being a uniform is that you distinctly wear it for work purposes. This is well known. Not sure why you’re acting like a twat about it. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/jobs-and-career/how-to-use-work-clothes-as-a-tax-deduction/L59P1ocW1
This article talks about how it’s ambiguous though and provides examples of things that are typically not normal clothing such as overalls and bibs not being deductible.
It’s really not as clear cut as ‘uniform’ and it really boils down to a case by case basis except in the most obvious of cases.
That’s moving the goal posts and completely irrelevant; of course it’s case-by-case when it comes to what constitutes a ‘uniform’, or else no clothes would be considered non-deductible as anything could be a part of a uniform.
My aspie ass laughs at the squares in the tax office and their droll perspective on casual wear!
Take those write-offs where you can, I get it
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?
Maybe that’s how this smart tax strategy got uncovered?
Editors are clearly woke
Why does this tax exists? For taxing ads? Like for promoting a clothes brand?
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.
You don’t know what I’m willing to wear on the street, Swedish tax laws!
