24 |
an external degree from the University of London, was not allowed to deduct his expenses,101 any more than a soldier was obliged to share in the costs of the mess.102 |
In Brown v Bullock103 a bank manager was not allowed to deduct the cost of his subscription to a London club even though it was ‘virtually a condition of his employment’. However, in Elwood v Utitz104 a director of a company in Northern Ireland who was obliged to travel to and stay in London frequently was allowed to deduct the costs of his subscription to a London club since he was buying accommodation and the fact that he chose to buy it at a club rather than a hotel was immaterial. |
18A.3.3 Wholly and Exclusively |
Many of these cases could as easily be explained on the ground that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the employment. Thus, in the mess cases there was some element of personal benefit,105 while in Brown v Bullock the bank manager derived personal benefit from the membership of the club. Unlike the test of necessity, the requirement of ‘wholly and exclusively’ is not wholly objective.106 Thus, the expenditure may satisfy this test if its sole object is the performance of duties regardless of the fact that it may bring about some other incidental result or effect.107 |