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 ordinary articles of apparel suitable for everyday wear. But for the requirements of her profession that she should be so clothed for her court appearances and for the fact that she would have been barred from pleading in court if she had not been so clothed, the tax payer would have not purchased those clothes. The tax payer had an ample supply of 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.
Held: After summarising the General Commissioner’s findings of fact, the Master of the Rolls continued: ‘From those findings of fact there is in my judgment only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn, namely, that the taxpayer’s sole purpose in incurring the expenditure was a professional purpose, any other benefit being purely incidental.’
Citations:
[1983] STC 124, [1983] 1 WLR 252
Statutes:
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 130(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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
Leading Case
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.266052