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.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

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

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      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.

        • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          13 hours ago

          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.

          • NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            12 hours ago

            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.