10 |
telephone number instead of his own, that should not make his friend’s house one of his places of work. The point was when his duties commenced rather than where. In the same way, in Taylor v Provan the House of Lords seemed to be concerned with the question ‘was he travelling in the performance of his duties’ rather than’ was his office a home and, if not, did he travel from his office or from his home’. On this approach one can reconcile the earlier decision of Nolder v Walters33 where an airline pilot sought unsuccessfully to deduct the cost of travelling from his home to the airport. The fact that he was summoned by his employer made no difference. While travelling to the airport he was not under his employer’s command. He was travelling to his office, not from one office to another. If this approach is right far more attention is being paid to the subjective circumstances of the parties to the contract than was apparent from the approach of Lord Blanesburgh in Ricketts v Colquhoun.34 |
18A.2.3 Amount |
It is unclear whether the objective rule that the expenses must have been necessarily incurred limits the amount of expenditure that may be deducted. In Marsden v IRC35 the taxpayer, who was an investigator in the Audit Division of the Inland Revenue, used his car for travelling on official business. There was no evidence that he could not have travelled by public transport. His claim to deduct the difference between the allowance he received, which was based on car mileage, and what he actually spent, was rejected by his employers and by the courts. Pennycuick J said that the scale of |