Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Enquiry Into Self-Assessment Return

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 236 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.619277

INCOME TAX – PAYE – penalty for late payment – Schedule 56 FA 2009 – illness of directors – allocation of payments – HMRC guidance in Debt Management and Banking Manual DMBM210105 that exceptionally HMRC should suggest different allocation of payment to taxpayer where in taxpayer’s best interests considered – no reasonable excuse – no special circumstances – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 270 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.525248

INCOME TAX – whether appellant met criteria in s 217 ITTOIA for a change in basis period – application of ’18 month test’ – whether various financial statements were accounts – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 28 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.635215

Income Tax. Profits. Mutual Life Insurance. A mutual life insurance company has no members other than the holders of participating policies, to whom all the assets of the Company belong. At the close of each year an actuarial valuation is made, and if the aggregate receipts of the Company have been more than sufficient to cover the expenses and estimated liabilities, the surplus is divided between the participating policy-holders, who receive their dividends in the shape either of a cash reduction from future premiums, or of a reversionary addition to the amount of their policies.

Citations:

[1889] UKHL TC – 2 – 460, 14 App Cas 381

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.635173

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 688 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.634799

The Court was asked whether the Appellants are managed services companies and whether Costelloe is a managed service company provider within the meaning of section 61B of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 474

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.634791

HL Income Tax, Schedule D – Dealer in securities – Dividend received out of paying company’s capital profit – Whether taxable. Income Tax – Additional assessment-Discovery – Facts known to Inspector at all material times – Appeal settled by agreement after enquiry on material point-Whether additional assessment can be made subsequently – Income Tax Act, 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. VI and EUz. II, c. 10), Sections 41, 50 and 510.

Citations:

[1962] UKHL TC – 40 – 176

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 1952

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.559955

INCOME TAX – employment-related loans – benefit of taxable cheap loan treated as earnings – whether exception for loan on ordinary commercial terms applied where a mortgage comprised of two different investment products with different rates of interest and terms and conditions – Yes – Appeal allowed. Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 Sections 175 and 176

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 317 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.525244

INCOME TAX – late filing penalties – employer’s return – reasonable excuse – test filing – mistake or misunderstanding – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 255 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.525242

INCOME TAX – two penalty notices for late filing of employer’s annual return under Regulation 73 PAYE Regulations – section 98A(2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether returns submitted – delay by HMRC in notifying appellant of penalties – whether penalties fair – whether reasonable excuse – HMRC v Hok Limited [212] UKUT 363 considered and applied – appeal dismissed – HMRC’s discretion to mitigate penalties

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 253 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.525250

INCOME TAX – Penalties for failures to comply with Information Notices issued under paragraph 5 of Schedule 36 Finance Act 2008 – whether any reasonable excuse – whether any other reasons to cancel – no – whether penalties proportionate – yes – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 247 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.525247

FTTTx Income Tax – late payment penalty – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 755 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.519648

INCOME TAX – PAYE – penalty for late payment – Schedule 56 FA 2009 – financial difficulties – allocation of payments – conduct of HMRC – special circumstances – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 222 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.525223

Penalty imposed for late submission of Employers Annual Return – Appellant experienced difficulty filing on-line – whether reasonable excuse – no

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 478 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.426610

Income tax – late payment surcharge – section 59C(2) Taxes Management Act 1970 – meaning of ‘paid’ and ‘unpaid’ in relation to electronic payment –
Held: date tax is ‘paid’ is date of receipt by HMRC and not date of initiation of electronic payment

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 443 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.426559

Income tax – late payment surcharge – section 59C(2) Taxes Management Act 1970 – meaning of ‘paid’ and ‘unpaid’ in relation to electronic payment –
Held: date tax is ‘paid’ is date of receipt by HMRC and not date of initiation of electronic payment

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 442 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.426558

Appeal against disallowance of motor expenses – what constitutes base of operations or actual place of business

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 313 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.422319

Income Tax – Appellant sub-postmaster receiving termination payment on closure of sub-post office – was this compensation solely for loss of capital outlay on purchase price of business and not in connection with loss of office as a subpostmaster – no – or compensation for loss of office for the purposes of s401 ITEPA subject to s403 ITEPA exemption and therefore employment income – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 424 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.426567

Penalty – Partnership Return – Online Filing – Appeal Dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 529 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.426605

Application for costs – appeal to Special Commissioners constituting ‘current proceedings’ for the purposes of the Transfer of Functions Order 2009 (SI 2009/56) – requirements of Rule 21 of the Special Commissioners’ Procedure Rules 1994 (SI 1994/1811)

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 141 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.426601

Income Tax – Loss Relief – were the losses arising from a failed business venture incurred by the Appellant trading on his own account as a concert promoter – No – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 425 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.426562

Income tax – appeal against HMRC refusal to postpone income tax payable on amendment to self assessment return

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 325 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.422312

The House considered the taxation of a foreign company’s distribution of its profits.
Held: The form by which the distribution is made rather than the substance that determines whether it is of capital or of income. Lord Pearce said: ‘the factual situation (which includes foreign law) has to be examined in order to apply the English law’
Income Tax, Schedule D, Case V – Capital or Income – Distribution of assets of foreign company.

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Cohen, Lord Jenkins , Lord Guest, Lord Pearce

Citations:

[1963] UKHL 7, [1963] 1 WLR 555, 41 Tax Cas 1, [1963] UKHL TC – 41 – 1, (1963) 41 TC 1

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.248549

Until 1919 Mr. Levene had been both resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. Then, for five years he spent about five months (mainly in the summer) each year, staying in hotels in the UK and receiving medical attention or pursuing religious and social activities. He spent the remaining months staying in hotels abroad. The House considered what was the meaning of ‘residence.’
Held: The appeal failed. The taxpayer had remained resident and ordinarily resident in the UK during those years.
Viscount Cave LC said: ‘My Lords, the word ‘reside’ is a familiar English word and is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as meaning ‘to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, to have one’s settled or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place.’ No doubt this definition must for present purposes be taken subject to any modification which may result from the terms of the Income Tax Act and Schedules; but, subject to that observation, it may be accepted as an accurate indication of the meaning of the word ‘reside’. In most cases there is no difficulty in determining where a man has his settled or usual abode, and if that is ascertained he is not the less resident there because from time to time he leaves it for the purpose of business or pleasure. Thus, a master mariner who had his home at Glasgow where his wife and family lived, and to which he returned during the intervals between his sea voyages, was held to reside there, although he actually spent the greater part of the year at sea (Re Young, 1875, 1 Tax Cases 57; Rogers v Inland Revenue, 1879, 1 Tax Cases 225). Similarly a person who has his home abroad and visits the United Kingdom from time to time for temporary purposes without setting up an establishment in this country is not considered to be resident here.’ and
‘The expression ‘ordinary residence’ is found in the Income Tax Act 1806 and occurs again and again in the later Income Tax Acts, where it is contrasted with the usual or occasional or temporary residence; and I think that it connotes residence in a place with some degree of continuity and apart from accidental or temporary absences.’
Lord Warrington said: ‘A member of this House may well be said to be ordinarily resident in London during the Parliamentary session and in the country during the recess. If it has any definite meaning I should say it means according to the way in which a man’s life is usually ordered’.

Judges:

Viscount Cave LC, Lord Warrington

Citations:

[1928] AC 217, [1928] UKHL 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer HL 3-Nov-1999
Mrs. Nessa arrived at Heathrow aged 55 having lived all her life in Bangladesh. Her husband, Mr. Mobarak Ali, had lived in the United Kingdom from 1962 until he died in 1975 and when she arrived here, Mrs. Nessa had a right of abode. She hoped to . .
Cited – Regina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah HL 16-Dec-1982
The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the . .
Cited – Longson v HM Inspector of Taxes CA 13-Mar-2001
The taxpayer disposed of his farmhouse, and sought exemption from Capital Gains Tax under sections 101 and 102 of the 1989 Act. The Revenue said it had not been his only or main residence. Contracts had been exchanged for its purchase in 1983, but . .
Cited – Varsani v Relfo Ltd CA 27-May-2010
The defendant appealed against refusal of a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. He said that he lived in Kenya, and the claimant had failed first to apply for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The claimant had . .
Cited – Davies and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2011
The Revenue had published a booklet, IR20, setting out their approach to the interpretation of the phrases ‘residence’ and ‘ordinary residence’. The taxpayer said that this was a more generous definition than the statutory one, and that having acted . .
Cited – Cornwall Council, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Somerset County Council SC 8-Jul-2015
PH had severe physical and learning disabilities and was without speech, lacking capacity to decide for himself where to live. Since the age of four he received accommodation and support at public expense. Until his majority in December 2004, he was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200337

SCIT Income tax – Profits – Determination of the profits of the opening years of a partnership business

Citations:

[2004] UKSC SPC00423

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200058

Expenditure does not qualify for deduction if the object of the expenditure was to serve another private purpose in addition to the business purpose for which it was purportedly incurred.
HL Income Tax – Schedule D Case II – Computation of partnership profits – Large firm of Accountants – Reimbursement of removal expenses of partners required to move to another branch of firm – Whether deductible as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of the profession – Whether, in considering the purpose for which expenditure is incurred, a partnership firm is to be treated as an entity separate from the individual partners – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, s 130(a).

Citations:

[1989] STC 898, [1990] 2 AC 239, [1989] UKHL TC – 62 – 704, [1990] 1 All ER 45, 62 TC 704, [1989] 3 WLR 1245, [1990] STC 898

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 130(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mallalieu v Drummond HL 27-Jul-1983
The taxpayer was a barrister. To comply with Bar guidance on court dress, she wore, in court and in and to and from chambers black dresses, suits and shoes and white blouses. The clothing were perfectly ordinary articles suitable for everyday wear. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Vodafone Cellular Ltd v G Shaw (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) CA 20-Mar-1997
The court considered the application of the ‘exclusively’ test for expenditure which was sought to be set off against tax. Examining the leading modern cases, Millett LJ said: ‘the following propositions may be derived. (1) The words for the . .
Cited – David Robson v Eric Mitchell (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 8-Jul-2004
The taxpayer sought capital gains tax relief of a loan to a business.
Held: To succeed in his claim the taxpayer had to establish that the indebtedness created was to be used entirely to serve the borrower’s business. . .
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199766

The court considered whether the partners in a firm of solicitors could deduct from profits the expenses involved in entertaining clients to lunch.
Held: They were deductible, notwithstanding the element of hospitality involved: ‘The relevant words of r 3 (a) of the Rules Applicable to Cases I and II ‘wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the . . profession’ appear straightforward enough. It is conceded that the first adverb ‘wholly’ is in reference to the quantum of the money expended and has no relevance to the present case. The sole question is whether the expenditure in question was ‘exclusively’ laid out for business purposes, that is: What was the motive or object in the mind of the two individuals responsible for the activities in question? It is well established that the question is one of fact: and again, therefore, the problem seems simple enough. The difficulty, however, arises, as we think, from the nature of the activity in question. Entertaining involves inevitably the characteristic of hospitality: giving to charity or subscribing to a staff pension fund involves inevitably the object of benefaction: an undertaking to guarantee to a limited amount a national exhibition involves inevitably supporting that exhibition and the purposes for which it has been organised. But the question in all such cases is: Was the entertaining, the charitable subscription, the guarantee, undertaken solely for the purposes of business, that is, solely with the object of promoting the business or its profit-earning capacity? It is, as we have said, a question of fact. And it is quite clear that the purpose must be the sole purpose. The paragraph says so in clear terms. If the activity be undertaken with the object both of promoting business and also with some other purpose, for example, with the object of indulging an independent wish of entertaining a friend or stranger or of supporting a charitable or benevolent object, then the paragraph is not satisfied though in the mind of the actor the business motive may predominate. For the statute so prescribes. Per contra, if, in truth, the sole object is business promotion, the expenditure is not disqualified because the nature of the activity necessarily involves some other result, or the attainment or furtherance of some other objective, since the latter result or objective is necessarily inherent in the act.’

Judges:

Romer LJ

Citations:

[1952] 33 TC 491

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – David Robson v Eric Mitchell (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 8-Jul-2004
The taxpayer sought capital gains tax relief of a loan to a business.
Held: To succeed in his claim the taxpayer had to establish that the indebtedness created was to be used entirely to serve the borrower’s business. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199764

The taxpayer was a barrister. To comply with Bar guidance on court dress, she wore, in court and in and to and from chambers black dresses, suits and shoes and white blouses. The clothing were perfectly ordinary articles suitable for everyday wear. But for her professional requirements she would have not purchased those clothes. She had other clothes to keep her in comfort and decency. The preservation of warmth and decency was not a consideration which crossed her mind when she bought the clothes. In computing the profits of her profession in the year of assessment 1977-78, the taxpayer claimed that the sum she had spent on the replacement, laundering and cleaning of the clothes she wore in court was expenditure incurred’wholly and exclusively . . for the purpose of her profession’.
Held: The inspector’s appeal succeeded. The object of incurring such expenditure was both to serve the purposes of the barrister’s profession and also to serve her personal purposes. The words ‘expended for the purposes of the . . profession’ in section 130(a) meant ‘expended to serve the purposes of the . . profession’ and ‘purposes’ in this context referred to the purposes of the business. To decide whether money was expended to serve the purposes of the tax payer’s business it is necessary to discover the tax payer’s object in making the expenditure. Though the tax payer’s conscious motive was of vital significance in ascertaining her object, it was not decisive and the Commissioners were entitled to find on the facts that as the taxpayer had to wear something, one object was the provision of the clothing that she needed as a human being. It followed that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of her profession.
Lord Brightman said: ‘The effect of para (a) is to exclude, as a deduction, the money spent by the taxpayer unless she can establish that such money was spent exclusively for the purposes of her profession. The words in the paragraph ‘expended for the purposes of the trade, profession or vocation’ mean in my opinion ‘expended to serve the purposes of the trade, profession or vocation’; or . . ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to carry on and earn profits in the trade etc.’ The particular words emphasised do not refer to ‘the purposes’ of the taxpayer as some of the cases appear to suggest; . . They refer to ‘the purposes’ of the business which is a different concept although the ‘purposes’ (i.e. the intentions or objects) of the tax payer are fundamental to the application of the paragraph.
The effect of the word ‘exclusively’ is to preclude a deduction if it appears that the expenditure was not only to serve the purposes of the trade, profession or vocation of the tax payer but also to serve some other purposes. Such other purposes, if found to exist, will usually be the private purposes of the taxpayer . .
To ascertain whether the money was expended to serve the purpose of the taxpayer’s business it is necessary to discover the taxpayer’s ‘object’ in making the expenditure: see Morgan -v- Tate and Lyle Ltd [1955] AC 21 at 37 and 47. As the taxpayer’s ‘object’ in making the expenditure has to be found, it inevitably follows that (save in obvious cases which speak for themselves) the commissioners need to look into the taxpayer’s mind at the moment when the expenditure is made. After events are irrelevant to the application of s.130 except as a reflection of the taxpayer’s state of mind at the time of the expenditure.
If it appears that the object of the taxpayer at the time of the expenditure was to serve two purposes, the purposes of his business and other purposes, it is immaterial to the application of s.130 (a) that the business purposes are the predominant purposes intended to be served.
The object of the taxpayer in making the expenditure must be distinguished from the effect of the expenditure. An expenditure may be made exclusively to serve the purposes of the business, but it may have a private advantage. The existence of that private advantage does not necessarily preclude the exclusivity of the business purposes. For example, a medical consultant has a friend in the South of France who is also his patient. He flies to the South of France for a week, staying in the home of his friend and attending professionally on him. He seeks to recover the costs of his air fare. The question of fact will be whether the journey was undertaken solely to serve the purposes of the medical practice. This will be judged in the light of the taxpayer’s object in making the journey. The question will be answered by considering whether the stay in the South of France was a reason, however subordinate, for undertaking the journey, or was not a reason but only the effect. If a week’s stay on the Riviera was not an object of the consultant, if the consultant’s only object was to attend on his patient, his stay on the Riviera was an unavoidable effect of the expenditure on the journey and the expenditure lies outside the prohibition in s.130.

He went on to describe the approach taken in the High Court and the Court of Appeal:- ‘As the taxpayer according to the undisputed evidence had nothing in her mind except the etiquette of her profession on the several occasions when she spent money on the upkeep of her wardrobe of working clothes, and ‘had no thought of warmth and decency’, it inevitably followed that the money was spent exclusively to serve the purposes of her business.
The provision of clothing as such, it was held, was nothing more than an incidental, although no doubt welcome, effect of her one and only object. The approach of the Court of Appeal was similar.
Lord Brightman concluded:- ‘My Lords, I find myself totally unable to accept this narrow approach. Of course the taxpayer thought only of the requirements of her profession when she first bought (as a capital expense) her wardrobe of subdued clothing and, no doubt, as and when she replaced items or sent them to the launderers or the cleaners she would, if asked, have repeated that she was maintaining her wardrobe because of those requirements. It is the natural way that anyone incurring such expenditure would think and speak. But she needed clothes to travel to work and clothes to wear at work, and I think it is inescapable that one object, though not a conscious motive, was the provision of the clothing that she needed as a human being. I reject the notion that the object of a taxpayer is inevitably limited to the particular conscious motive in mind at the moment of expenditure. Of course the motive of which the taxpayer is conscious is of vital significance, but it is not inevitably the only object which the commissioners are entitled to find to exist. In my opinion the commissioners were not only entitled to reach the conclusion that the taxpayer’s object was both to serve the purposes of her profession and also to serve her personal purposes, but I myself would have found it impossible to reach any other conclusion.
It was inevitable in this sort of case that analogies would be canvassed; for example, the self employed nurse who equips herself with what is conveniently called a nurse’s uniform. Such cases are matters of fact and degree. In the case of the nurse, I am disposed to think, without inviting your Lordships to decide, that the material and design of the uniform may be dictated by the practical requirements of the art of nursing and the maintenance of hygiene. There may be other cases where it is essential that the self employed person should provide himself with and maintain a particular design of clothing in order to obtain any engagements at all in the business that he conducts. An example is the self -employed waiter, mentioned by Kerr LJ, who needs to wear ‘tails’. In his case the ‘tails’ are an essential part of the equipment of his trade, and it clearly would be open to the commissioners to allow the expense of their upkeep on the basis that the money was spent exclusively to serve the purposes of the business. I do not think that the decision which I urge on your Lordships should raise any problems in the ‘uniform’ type of case that was so much discussed in argument. As I have said, it is a matter of degree.’

Judges:

Lord Brightman, Lord Diplock, Lord Keith and Lord Roskill

Citations:

[1983] 57 TC 330, [1983] 2 AC 861, [1983] 2 All ER 1095, [1983] 3 WLR 409, [1983] UKHL TC – 57 – 330

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970 130(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mallalieu v Drummond CA 1983
The taxpayer, a lady barrister, sought to set off against her liability to tax, the cost of purchasing clothing which she would only wear at court in accordance with professional requirements. The clothing although subdued consisted of perfectly . .
Cited – Strong and Co of Romsey Ltd v Woodifield HL 30-Jul-1906
The company sought to deduct from its trading profits a sum expended paying damages for personal injuries to a visitor to the taxpayer’s Inn. The claim had been rejected.
Held: The company’s appeal failed. Lord Davey said: ‘I think that the . .
Cited – Prince v Mapp (Inspector of Taxes) 1970
. .
Cited – Morgan v Tate and Lyle Ltd HL 1955
The words ‘for the purposes of the trade’ in the statute mean ‘for the purposes of enabling a person to carry on and earn profits in the trade’. Money spent for the purpose of preserving the trade from destruction can properly be treated as wholly . .

Cited by:

Cited – Vodafone Cellular Ltd v G Shaw (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) CA 20-Mar-1997
The court considered the application of the ‘exclusively’ test for expenditure which was sought to be set off against tax. Examining the leading modern cases, Millett LJ said: ‘the following propositions may be derived. (1) The words for the . .
Cited – MacKinlay (Inspector of Taxes) v Arthur Young McClelland Moores and Co HL 23-Nov-1989
Expenditure does not qualify for deduction if the object of the expenditure was to serve another private purpose in addition to the business purpose for which it was purportedly incurred.
HL Income Tax – . .
Cited – David Robson v Eric Mitchell (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 8-Jul-2004
The taxpayer sought capital gains tax relief of a loan to a business.
Held: To succeed in his claim the taxpayer had to establish that the indebtedness created was to be used entirely to serve the borrower’s business. . .
Cited – McKnight (Inspector of Taxes) v Sheppard; Sheppard v McKnight ChD 21-May-1996
Legal costs and fines not deductible – insufficiently connected with trade. . .
Cited – David McKnight (Inspector of Taxes) v Sheppard CA 7-May-1997
Legal expenses incurred by a professional in defending disciplinary proceedings are deductible from taxable profits. . .
Cited – McKnight (Inspector of Taxes) v Sheppard HL 18-Jun-1999
The taxpayer sought to set off against tax some pounds 200,000 spent defending professional disciplinary proceedings. The House was asked whether this was ‘money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade.’
Held: . .
Cited – James v Bank of England EAT 13-Apr-1994
. .
Cited – Vodafone Cellular Ltd v Shaw (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 8-Mar-1995
A payment buying out technology royalties was not to be allowed against Corporation Tax. The cost of buying out a right to receive a revenue share was an income payment, not a capital payment. . .
Cited – Association of British Travel Agents Ltd v Inland Revenue SCIT 22-Nov-2002
FOREIGN COMPANY – motive test – captive insurance – whether main purpose of transaction with the captives was to obtain tax reduction – no – whether main reason for the existence of the captives was to achieve a reduction of tax by diversion of . .
Cited – Ian Dixon v Revenue and Customs SCIT 24-Nov-2005
SCIT INCOME TAX: ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE Sch D: interest payments on a commercial mortgage- was the purpose of the mortgage to purchase just business assets or to purchase a private dwelling house as well – a . .
Cited – Madeley And Finnigan v Revenue and Customs SCIT 8-Jun-2006
INCOME TAX – Deductibility of agents fees incurred by TV presenters – whether allowable under s. 201A TA 88 – whether allowable or allowable in part as an expense necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties under Schedule E – statutory . .
Cited – McQueen v Revenue and Customs SCIT 19-Mar-2007
ASSESSMENT – Discovery – Whether discovery assessment could be made to correct alleged overclaim of the expenditure relating to motor rallying – Whether Revenue officer could have been reasonably expected, on the basis of information made available . .
Cited – Coffee Republic Plc v Revenue and Customs VDT 18-May-2007
VDT Supply of hot toasties and of grilled panani – was it a supply in the course of catering or was the taxpayer’s purpose to enable the items to be consumed hot – Note 3 Group 1 Schedule 8 VATA 1994 – appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199765

The taxpayer was transferred from one football club to another. He was paid andpound;75,000 to persuade him to move. The revenue appealed a decision that this was not a sum taxable as an emolument under Schedule E by the new employer.
Held: The appeal was allowed. A payment was ‘from’ an employment if it was made as a reward for past services or as an inducement to take up employment. There was no necessity to show hat a payment by a third party had any interest in the past performance of the employment contract.
TC Income tax – Schedule E – Lump sum payment by football club to induce its employee to join a new club – Whether an emolument from the employment with the new club – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, ss 181 and 183(1).

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

[1991] 1 AC 684, [1991] UKHL TC – 64 – 78, [1991] 3 All ER 148, [1991] STC 88

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 19885

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Shilton v Wilmshurst (Inspector of Taxes) CA 1990
The taxpayer was a goalkeeper employed by Nottingham Forest Football Club. On his transfer to Southampton, he was paid pounds 75,000. The revenue appealed a finding that this was not taxable under Schedule E.
Held: To be taxcable it had to be . .
Considered – Hamblett v Godfrey (Inspector of Taxes) CA 2-Jan-1986
Affirmed. A single one off lump sum payment was found to be an emolument without consideration as to whether or not it was a capital payment. Miss Hamblett ‘received her payment as a recognition of the fact that she had lost certain rights as an . .
Disapproved – Pritchard (Inspector of Taxes) v Arundale ChD 1971
Megarry J discussed whether tips receieved were part taxable as an emolument: ‘I think the question to be tested in this way is only one question. Either the emoluments are within the statutory word ‘therefrom’, as explained by the cases, or they . .
Cited – Bray v Best HL 1989
There was not necessarily subsumed in the concession that a payment constituted an emolument from employment a conclusion that the payment must therefore be for a chargeable period within the aggregate period during which the employment subsisted. . .

Cited by:

Applied – Wilson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Clayton ChD 29-Apr-2004
Taxability of compensation paid on compromise of claims after dismissal. The employer introduced new terms, withdrawing car benefits. Having refused the new terms the taxpayer was dismissed. A tribunal held him unfairly dismissed. The council . .
Cited – Wilson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Clayton CA 7-Dec-2004
The claim against the defendant at the tribunal had been settled by a compromise which had then been the subject of an order by the tribunal. The Revenue sought to charge the payment to income tax.
Held: It had been paid ‘in connection with’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199540

SCIT INCOME TAX – Appeal against a refusal of an ‘error or mistake’ claim: s.33 TMA 1970 – claim for exemption from UK income tax on emoluments received by reason of employment as member of the service staff of a diplomatic mission: article 37(3) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, having the force of law in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 2 of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 – held that the Appellant, although a member of the service staff of a diplomatic mission was permanently resident in the United Kingdom within the meaning of article 37(3) and therefore disqualified from exemption – held further that even if she was not so permanently resident she was in any case prevented from enjoying such exemption because there was no appropriate notification of her appointment as required by article 39(1) of the Convention – appeal dismissed: Article 10 of the Convention, article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1980, section 4 of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, IRC v Commerzbank AG [1990] STC 285, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan [2002] 1 WLR 143, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bagga [1991] 1 All ER 777 also considered.

Citations:

[2004] UK SPC00419

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 33

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199214

SCIT PROFITS – incomplete records – estimates of car expenses and wife’s wages – figures for earlier years’ profits amended by applying the same percentage uplift as in the latest year rather than by applying the amount of omitted profits

Citations:

[2004] UK SPC00417

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199213

Directions

Citations:

[2004] UK SPC00420

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199217

SCIT INCOME TAX – Anti-Avoidance – Relevant discounted security – Loss on gift to wife – Subscription for security and gift part of scheme to produce loss – Avoidance not the Appellant’s sole purpose in subscribing – Ramsay (1982), Westmoreland (2003) and Arrowtown (2003) considered – FA 1996, Sch 13, para 2 – Appeal allowed

Judges:

Theodore Wallace and Julian Ghosh

Citations:

[2004] UK SPC00421, [2004] STC (SCD) 396

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1996 Sch 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Cited – MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .
Cited – Collector of Stamp Revenue v Arrowtown Assets Ltd 4-Dec-2003
(Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal) The court was asked as to the accounting treatment of interests incurred in the development for the purpose of generating the profits, and therefore whether the relevant Ordinance prohibited the capitalisation of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Nov-2004
The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199216

The taxpayers were trustees of a trust which had received bonuses by way of shares issued in lieu. They appealed a finding of being taxable on the payments as income and subject to higher rates of tax.
Held: The section was poorly worded, but the argument presented by the trustess would present anomolous results. The issue of the shares vy way of an enhanced scrip dividend was to be deemed to be income within the trust.

Judges:

Lord Justice Latham The President Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 885, Times 17-Aug-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 249 686

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198713

Penalty

Judges:

Dr Avery Jones

Citations:

[2004] UKSC SPC00400

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196477

INCOME TAX – ‘Transfer of assets abroad’ – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 367 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.657044

INCOME TAX – penalties for careless inaccuracies – failure by taxpayer to include various items of income in tax return – whether careless – yes in part – whether special circumstances – yes – whether decision of HMRC flawed – yes – whether appropriate to suspend penalties – no – allow appeal in part – reduce penalty to take account of special circumstances – Schedule 24, Finance Act 2007

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 333 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.462761

Assessment/self-assessment

Citations:

[2003] UKSC SPC00393

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195444

INCOME TAX – out of time assessments – whether loss of tax attributable to fraudulent or negligent conduct of Appellant – yes – appeal dismissed – TMA 1970 s 36(1)

Citations:

[2002] UKSC SPC00358

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 36(1)

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195397

SCIT NON-RESIDENT SPORTSMAN – whether the foreign entertainers provisions are limited to payments made by persons with a UK presence – no; whether the Income Tax (Entertainers and Sportsmen) Regulations 1987 apply on the facts – yes; whether professional tennis player receiving payments from a non-resident company for endorsing sportswear was carrying on a trade within the UK – yes

Citations:

[2003] UKSC SPC00373

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Tax (Entertainers and Sportsmen) Regulations 1987

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195432

SCIT COSTS OF OBTAINING LOAN FINANCE – expenses of management of investment company – period for which the costs are disbursed – whether deductible when incurred or spread over the life of the loan in accordance with Financial Reporting Standard 4 – deductible when incurred

Citations:

[2001] UKSC SPC00302

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195388

TAX AVOIDANCE; cross options and collateral loan; whether cross options to be regarded as single composite transaction with no commercial purpose other than tax saving scheme; loan relationships; gilts; debt contract; Finance Act 1994 as amended sections 147-177; Finance Act 1996 sections 80 and 81

Citations:

[2001] UKSC SPC00315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195392

SCIT ICTA 1988, s.349(3)(a) (unamended) – ‘Payable in the UK’ – Whether interest on a loan made by a UK bank remained so payable notwithstanding assignment of accrued interest debt to a company resident abroad, to which interest was subsequently paid

Citations:

[2002] UKSC SPC00351

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195406

SCIT INCOME TAX – payment received for cancellation of share options – whether exempt as termination payment under section 148 ICTA 1988 – whether assessable to income tax under s.135 ICTA 1988 – whether outcome affected by conduct of Inland Revenue in confirming that taxpayer’s affairs in order – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2003] UKSC SPC00378

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195433

FOREIGN COMPANY – motive test – captive insurance – whether main purpose of transaction with the captives was to obtain tax reduction – no – whether main reason for the existence of the captives was to achieve a reduction of tax by diversion of profits from the UK – yes -Taxes Act 1988 s.748(3).

Citations:

[2002] UKSC SPC00359

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 74893)

Citing:

Cited – Mallalieu v Drummond HL 27-Jul-1983
The taxpayer was a barrister. To comply with Bar guidance on court dress, she wore, in court and in and to and from chambers black dresses, suits and shoes and white blouses. The clothing were perfectly ordinary articles suitable for everyday wear. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195409

SCIT TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES – share buy-backs – trustees of exempt approved scheme purchased shares in Powergen which subsequently bought back the shares – trustees claimed tax credit – whether the scheme received an abnormal amount -no – whether the scheme obtained a tax advantage – yes – whether the sales back to Powergen were transactions carried out for bona fide commercial reasons or in the ordinary course of making or managing investments – yes – whether a main object of the sales was to enable tax advantages to be obtained – yes – appeal allowed – Taxes Act 1988 ss703, 704 and 709

Judges:

Dr Nuala Brice

Citations:

[2001] UKSC SPC00280

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 703 704 709

Citing:

Cited – Lomax v Peter Dixon and Son Ltd CA 1942
A substantial loan was made to be repaid on demand. An agreement was then made where the debtor issued to the creditor 680 loan notes of andpound;500 each, amounting in total to andpound;340,000 (a discount of 6%). The notes were to bear interest at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195375

SCIT SELF-ASSESSMENT – Notice by the Inspector to the taxpayer calling for documents – Validity of notice – Acceptance by the Inspector that the notice had been complied with and that no penalties could be imposed upon the taxpayer – Whether the appeal should continue – Application for costs by the taxpayer – Taxes Management Act 1970 section 19A.

Citations:

[1999] UKSC SPC00224

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 19A

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195349

Payment for loss of share option scheme rights was not taxable emolument.

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.90497

Income Tax. Deduction from Profits. Annuities. Rule 4 of Case I., Schedule D

Citations:

[1892] UKHL TC – 3 – 185, 3 TC 185

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.634557

INCOME TAX- Expenditure on relevant interest in a building – apportionment – amount qualifying for enterprise zone allowances

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 356 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.657040

Income Tax – Deductions – Rule 3 of 1, Case and Rule 1 of 1 st and 2nd Cases of Schedule D, Section 100 of 5 and 6 Viet, cup. 35.

Citations:

[1906] UKHL TC – 5 – 215

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.625471

FTTTx Income Tax – Application to appeal out of time – Dispute about basis of accounting for receivables – Application granted

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 518 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.516877

FTTTx Non-payment of income tax by due date – validity of claim to carry back losses to year for which tax due – meaning of ‘quantified’ – FA 2009 Sch 56 para 3(2) and para 16(1) – TMA 1970 s42(2) and Sch 1B para 2(2) – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 514 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.516881

FTTTx Income Tax – PAYE – Late payment penalty reasonable excuse – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 387 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.525364

FTTTc PAYE – Penalty for late payments; whether reasonable excuse – no; appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 537 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.516880

FTTTx INCOME TAX – appeals made more than 15 months late – should permission be given for these appeals? No on the facts.

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 103 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.442887

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Employment income – Deductions – Local Authority councillor – Home expenses – Child minding expenses – Communication expenses – Subscriptions – Whether deductible – ITEPA 2003 s.336

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 110 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.442882

The appellant was an employee and director of the company. He ceased employment, and sought to receive payments from his pensions, but continued to hold the position of director.
Held: The provisions of the pension scheme had to be read in the context of the 1970 Act, and words in the trust instrument should be read with the same meanings. Here ‘retirement’ meant cessation of employment, and a director was to be included as an employee. It followed that relief was not available.

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Potter, Chadwick LLJ

Citations:

Times 28-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1277

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1970 26(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Venables and Others v Hornby (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 14-Jun-2001
The word ‘retirement’ connotes a withdrawal from work, rather than merely a reduction in workload. A director claimed to have retired, and to be entitled to draw his pension, and to receive pension tax relief.
Held: Whether he had retired was . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Venables and others v Hornby (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 4-Dec-2003
The company director taxpayer had retired from his company but stayed on as an unpaid non-executive director. The trust deed for the company’s pension scheme provided for payments to be made to an employee. The director sought relief from payment of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177477

Mr Newsom, a practising barrister sought to set off against his income, the expenses of travelling between his home and his chambers in London. The Inspector appealed the decision of the commissioners that he could do so. The rule required that the expense be incurred wholely necessarily and exclusively for the purposes of a trade profession or employment. He practised partly from home and partly from chambers. The Special Commissioners had disallowed travel during term, but allowed it during vacations.
Held: The issue had not previously been presented in just this form. Mr Newsom said that if he had two sets of chambers he would be allowed to claim for travel between them. However the travel in this case had a dual purpose, and it would be difficult to make a split between wholly professional purposes and private purposes. He travelled to and from chambers to get to and from home as much as to and from chambers. The travel was not therefore wholely or exclusively for business purposes, and was not deductible.

Judges:

Danckwerts J

Citations:

(1952) 33 TC 452, [1951] 1 Ch 7

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 1918 Sch D

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Von Glehn CA 1920
The company had paid a penalty during the First World War under the Customs (War Powers) Act 1915 for exporting goods without taking all reasonable care to secure that the ultimate destination should not be enemy territory. They sought to set off . .
Cited – Norman v Golder (Inspector of Taxes) 1944
The court considered the nature of allowable expenses for an investment company: ‘the notion behind this Section may be thought to be that the expenditure is something which if you were looking at the profits and gains under Schedule D would be . .
Cited – Smith’s Potato Estates Ltd v Bolland (Inspector of Taxes) HL 1948
The taxpayer claimed to deduct the legal costs of contesting an assessment to tax. The dispute was about the computation of the taxpayer’s profits. It assumed that those profits were ascertainable, one way or another, at the time when the dispute . .
Cited – Spofforth and Prince v Golder (Inspector of Taxes) 1945
. .

Cited by:

Followed – Horton v Young CA 1972
A bricklayer sought to set against his income tax, the expenses of travelling to and from his home to work.
Held: The taxpayer travelled from home to sites within a 55 mile radius. The home was his base of operations, and the expenses were . .
Cited – Powell v Jackman (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 10-Mar-2004
The taxpayer was a milkman. He sought to set off against his liability to income tax, the expenses of his daily journey between his home and the depot from which he collected the milk for distribution.
Held: The only test was whether the . .
Cited – Sargent v Barnes ChD 1978
The dental surgeon taxpayer travelled to his dental surgery from home by car every day, a distance of about 11 miles. He also maintained a laboratory where a dental technician worked, about 1 mile from his home and almost directly on the route . .
Cited – Samadian v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 28-Jan-2013
FTTTx INCOME TAX – self-employed consultant geriatrician with office at home where he performed significant business functions – travel between home, places of employment and private hospitals where he saw . .
Appeal from – Newsom v Robertson CA 3-Jan-1953
Mr Newsom, a barrister, sought to deduct the costs of travelling between his chambers in London and his home in Whipsnade or income tax purposes. He carried out a good deal of his professional work in his well-equipped study at home, especially . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.195744

Interest payments capitalized for stated period deductible as charge on income.

Citations:

Ind Summary 18-Dec-1995

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 338

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83265

The taxpayer was a milkman. He sought to set off against his liability to income tax, the expenses of his daily journey between his home and the depot from which he collected the milk for distribution.
Held: The only test was whether the expense was wholly necessarily and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the trade. In this case the milkman kept his float at the depot, and the travel was to his base of operations. He was therefore unable to make the reclaim.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

Times 01-Apr-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Horton v Young CA 1972
A bricklayer sought to set against his income tax, the expenses of travelling to and from his home to work.
Held: The taxpayer travelled from home to sites within a 55 mile radius. The home was his base of operations, and the expenses were . .
Cited – Newsom v Robertson ChD 30-Apr-1952
Mr Newsom, a practising barrister sought to set off against his income, the expenses of travelling between his home and his chambers in London. The Inspector appealed the decision of the commissioners that he could do so. The rule required that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.195743