On the heels of Sunday's report that the Revenue Service wanted to tax agented income (instead of the customary "it's a business expense writeoff" approach) by using Richard Madeley and Judy Finnegan as a test case, and heated reactions from the publishing industry and disgruntled authors, the Service is denying such claims. "An author is not a direct comparison to what Richard and Judy do, so there is no connection," said HM Revenue and Customs spokesperson Claudine Lashley to the Bookseller. "The legislation at the heart of the row only applies to people who are 'employed'-- as opposed to 'self-employed' like most authors. If an author is self-employed, their agent's fees are an allowable business expense."

But some authors nonetheless remain anxious that they will be forced to repay taxes and interest on agents' fees for the past six years—author Susan Hill estimated that her bill would run into six figures, forcing her to sell her house: "I am by no means optimistic." Meanwhile Madeley and Finnegan's agent, Luigi Bonomi, said he was suspicious about what HMRC will regard as self-employed. "They are trying to blur lines," he said.