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 during court vacations (when he only visited his London chambers on rare occasions for conferences). The Special Commissioners had found that in court vacations the basis of Mr Newsom’s professional operations moved from London to Whipsnade. In the High Court, Danckwerts J held that none of the travel expenses were deductible, since the reason the expenses had been incurred was because Mr Newsom wanted to live in the country, and it followed that the travel to and fro had a mixed purpose (partly professional and partly ‘the requirements of his existence as a person with a wife and family and a home’) and the expenses of that travel therefore failed the ‘wholly and exclusively’ test. He now appealed.
Held: The appeal failed, though each judge gave slightly differing reasons.
Sommervell LJ took the view that the expenses of travel to and fro should be aggregated and treated together. He considered that Mr Newsom’s chambers in London remained his ‘professional base’ throughout the year. This does not seem to have been his reason for dismissing the appeal however. Instead, he found that the location of Mr Newsom’s house ‘had nothing to do with’ his practice. It was simply his home, and the fact that he did a significant amount of professional work there did not change that fact. Accordingly, he doubted that there was any professional purpose to the travelling, but if there was it was certainly subsidiary to the private purpose.
Denning LJ made a tacit assumption that every trade, profession or occupation has a single ‘base’. On that assumption, all that was necessary was to identify the base and then it was quite clear that the cost of travel between the home and that base was not deductible. It was incurred, in his view, ‘for the purposes of his living there and not for the purposes of his profession, or at any rate not wholly or exclusively’. He found that Mr Newsom’s base was at his chambers in London and therefore he held that the commuting costs were not deductible.
Romer LJ first reasserted the general proposition that normally, travel between home and work has as its object ‘not to enable a man to do his work but to live away from it.’ He then considered whether anything was changed as a result of a taxpayer doing work at home as well as at his normal place of work. He considered that it changed nothing, at least in Mr Newsom’s case, essentially because if Mr Newsom had not travelled at all, he could have carried on his profession perfectly satisfactorily from his chambers in London. He dismissed any suggestion that Mr Newsom might have had two places of business, but without elaborating on his reasons for doing so.
Judges:
Sommervell LJ, Romer LJ, Denning LJ
Citations:
(1952) 33 TC 452, [1952] 1 Ch 7
Citing:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited by:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Income Tax
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.503552