The court was asked whether the taxpayer dermatologist could deduct the expenses of attending educational courses, conferences and meetings, including associated costs of travel and accommodation.
Held: She could.
The defendant requested anonymisation of the judgment – the extent to which the identity of the parties has already been revealed goes to the questions of what rights to privacy they still have and how effective the order is likely to be in preserving them.
Henderson J
[2009] EWHC 62 (Ch), [2009] STC 1930, [2009] 3 All ER 915, [2010] 1 WLR 800, [2009] STI 1962, [2009] BTC 323
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 198
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – HM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee (1) ChD 19-Jun-2009
The taxpayer sought anonymity in the reporting of the case against her.
Held: No, she could not be given anonymity.
Henderson J said: ‘In determining whether it is necessary to hold a hearing in private, or to grant anonymity to a party, . .
Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee CA 28-Jul-2010
The taxpayer doctor had claimed against her income tax, the costs of attending training courses required under her employment contract and for professional development. The Revenue appealed against a decision allowing the expenses.
Held: The . .
Cited – Money v AB ChD 10-Nov-2021
Anonymity – balance in favour of open justice
Ruling on an application by the Defendant for anonymity.
Held: Refused: ‘The mental health condition of the Defendant and the impact of the judgment on his family relationships are, therefore, relevant factors to take into account, but they do . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Income Tax
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.347122