The 'letter' of the rules or the 'spirit' of the rules?

The crucial point here appears to be that Ms Smith appears highly unlikely to have incurred additional expenditure at anything like the level which she has claimed.

The only information we have is that she pays more than a pepper corn rent at her sister's London home. It would have to be a great deal more than a peppercorn to justify her expense claim of £116,000 over several years.

The fact is that if the rules permit Ms Smith to claim more than the extra cost that she would have to bear for one home, then the rules should be changed. The rules should not effectively allow an MP to run his or her ordinary family home at the expense of the country.

But in any event should Ms Smith not be abiding voluntarily by the 'spirit' of the rules, rather than the strict 'letter'.

HMRC would certainly not permit an employer to reimburse tax free anything other than additional costs incurred by an individual having to live in two places because of their job! Could this be another area where there is one tax rule for politicians and another one for the rest of us?

What are your views?