In T Healy v HMRC (TC01940 – 19 April) a professional actor (H) who lived in Cheshire with his wife accepted a role in a play at a London theatre. In April 2005 he rented a flat which was just over a mile from the theatre. He claimed a deduction of £32 503 in respect of the rent of the flat and also claimed deductions of £8 174 in respect of travelling (by taxi) and subsistence (meals in restaurants). HMRC rejected the claim and H appealed. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. Judge King found that H had rented the flat ‘wholly and exclusively in connection with his profession as an actor’. However the expenditure on restaurant meals was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his profession and H had not submitted sufficient evidence...
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 T Healy v HMRC (TC01940 – 19 April) a professional actor (H) who lived in Cheshire with his wife accepted a role in a play at a London theatre. In April 2005 he rented a flat which was just over a mile from the theatre. He claimed a deduction of £32 503 in respect of the rent of the flat and also claimed deductions of £8 174 in respect of travelling (by taxi) and subsistence (meals in restaurants). HMRC rejected the claim and H appealed. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. Judge King found that H had rented the flat ‘wholly and exclusively in connection with his profession as an actor’. However the expenditure on restaurant meals was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his profession and H had not submitted sufficient evidence...
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:
