The taxman does not generally have many friends and Kent County Council is certainly not among them.
After a long wrangle which has been going on for more than a year, HMRC has told the authority that its 84 elected members should be paying tax on car journeys they make from home to County Hall.
The county council's response? It has set out an option to increase the mileage rate councillors can claim to compensate for the 'loss' caused by the tax deductions they will have to suffer.
Unfortunately for KCC, this particular option - which will be voted on on Thursday (18) - comes just one week after leaders announced they would be looking to make a further £240m savings from 2015 and would be looking to outsource many more services to avoid going bust.
So, the timing is not great and neither, whatever the arguments that may be made, is the perception that this amounts to a ruse by the council to ensure that they are not left out of pocket by HMRC's ruling. Inevitably, it would be the taxpayer picking up the estimated £50,000 more it will cost.
KCC's case that members should not pay tax on car journeys has turned on its contention that for many councillors, their home doubles as a place of work and consequently trips should be treated as business trips.
It is certainly true that many members do work in their own home (as indeed do many others employees who do not get any such tax relief) but HRMC said that unless members "routinely" saw constituents in their home, it did not class it as a workplace.
You can argue the case both ways, although my own feeling is that while many members do work at home, not many routinely see constituents at them - at least not as frequently as HMRC believes would be necessary.
(And no employer that I have come across subsidises travel from home to work.)
The HMRC guidance is pretty clear, saying that: "The fact that a councillor chooses to do some work at home - for example, reading council papers or completing correspondence - does not make that home a distinct place of work for the purpose of claiming tax relief on travel expenses."
All of which leaves county councillors in a quandary.
The one point where I have some sympathy is that certain members incur much more by way of expenses in travel because of where they live. Wear and tear on their cars is arguably more and so too are their petrol costs.
KCC says one other option might be to have some geographical banding, paying higher rates to those who live further away. That runs the perverse risk of incentivising more travel and the "meetings culture" too many town halls still cling too.
The county council's own report on the matter reveals just how seriously it has taken the issue.
It records "numerous representations" made to HRMC and disclosing that "members asked officers to delay implementation whilst a further approach was made to HRMC at the most senior level" only last month.
So, an idea of the priority they have given it.
I am less convinced by the argument that if this has to be accepted by the county council, it will somehow deter people from standing in local elections.
Members qualify for a pretty generous basic allowance of £12,800 already and in making this argument, KCC inadertently betrays that most of what members do takes place at County Hall rather than in their own divisions, which perhaps ought to be the case.
Cabinet members certainly do have to be at County Hall regularly, as do opposition leaders but it is less the case for backbenchers.
So, it will be interesting to see how county councillors vote and which of the options they back at Thursday's full council meeting.
I sense they may be gently applying the brakes and going into reverse gear, which wouldn't be a bad idea.
There is a certain irony that to determine what they should do about their mileage claims, 84 members will travel to County Hall on Thursday to have a debate and a vote.
Wonder how many will car share?