| Employment Income: Deductions and Expenses |
7 |
| extreme case it may be possible to show that the taxpayer is the only person in the world who can carry out the duties (Taylor v Provan 20). |
18A.2.2 Three House of Lords’ Cases21 |
1. Ricketts v Colquhoun22 |
The taxpayer (R) lived in London and was a practising member of the London Bar. He was taxable under schedule D, case II in respect of his earnings at the Bar. He was also Recorder of Portsmouth and was taxable under schedule E in respect of his earnings from this source. He sought to deduct the costs of travelling from his home to Portsmouth. The House of Lords rejected his appeal on two main grounds. First, when travelling to his place of work he was travelling not in the course of those duties but in order to enable him to perform them;23 his duties only began at Portsmouth. Secondly, the expenses could not be said to have been incurred necessarily;24 since a recorder could have lived in Portsmouth, the costs of travel from London were not necessary. A further point was that his choice of abode in London was a personal matter and the expenses consequent on that choice were therefore personal expenses. |
2. Owen v Pook25 |
The taxpayer (O) was a medical practitioner who resided at Fishguard. He also held part-time appointments as obstetrician and anaesthetist at Haverfordwest 15 miles away. Under these appointments O was on ‘standby duty’ 2 weekends a month and on Monday and Friday nights, at which times he was required to be accessible by telephone. |