In S Long v HMRC (TC01843 – 9 March) an American citizen (L) took up employment with Goldman Sachs in London in 2004. He rented a house in the UK and claimed deductions for the rent the costs of travel from the house to his office and for ‘subsistence expenses’.
HMRC rejected the claim and L appealed contending that since he had intended to return to the USA within two or three years his office in London should be treated as a ‘temporary workplace’ for the purposes of ITEPA 2003 s 339. The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed L’s appeal.
Judge Radford held that the London office ‘did not qualify as a temporary workplace and therefore the travel and subsistence expenses were not deductible’.
Why it matters: ITEPA 2003 s 339 defines a...
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 S Long v HMRC (TC01843 – 9 March) an American citizen (L) took up employment with Goldman Sachs in London in 2004. He rented a house in the UK and claimed deductions for the rent the costs of travel from the house to his office and for ‘subsistence expenses’.
HMRC rejected the claim and L appealed contending that since he had intended to return to the USA within two or three years his office in London should be treated as a ‘temporary workplace’ for the purposes of ITEPA 2003 s 339. The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed L’s appeal.
Judge Radford held that the London office ‘did not qualify as a temporary workplace and therefore the travel and subsistence expenses were not deductible’.
Why it matters: ITEPA 2003 s 339 defines a...
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:
