In Miss SH Ling v HMRC (TC01629 – 19 December) a certified accountant (L) who was employed by an accountancy firm claimed a deduction of £3 000 which she described as ‘rent’. HMRC rejected the claim and she appealed contending that this related to the use of her home as an office. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal. Judge Clark found that there was ‘no evidence that keeping an office at her home was a requirement of (L’s) employment’ and held that the claim did not meet the requirements of ITEPA 2003 s 336. (Various other claims including a large claim for travelling expenses were also rejected.)
Why it matters: ITEPA 2003 s 336 provides that a deduction is only allowable where expenditure ‘is incurred wholly exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Miss SH Ling v HMRC (TC01629 – 19 December) a certified accountant (L) who was employed by an accountancy firm claimed a deduction of £3 000 which she described as ‘rent’. HMRC rejected the claim and she appealed contending that this related to the use of her home as an office. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal. Judge Clark found that there was ‘no evidence that keeping an office at her home was a requirement of (L’s) employment’ and held that the claim did not meet the requirements of ITEPA 2003 s 336. (Various other claims including a large claim for travelling expenses were also rejected.)
Why it matters: ITEPA 2003 s 336 provides that a deduction is only allowable where expenditure ‘is incurred wholly exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
