In T Sathesh-Kumar v HMRC (TC01336 – 18 August) a surgical trainee who had worked at six different hospitals during a six-year period claimed a deduction for his travelling expenses.
HMRC rejected his claim and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal. Judge Radford observed that ‘each placement was a separate employment’.
Why it matters: The cost of travelling from one’s home to one’s workplace is not an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that each of the hospitals at which the appellant had worked had been his workplace so that the costs of travelling there were not an allowable deduction.
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 Sathesh-Kumar v HMRC (TC01336 – 18 August) a surgical trainee who had worked at six different hospitals during a six-year period claimed a deduction for his travelling expenses.
HMRC rejected his claim and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal. Judge Radford observed that ‘each placement was a separate employment’.
Why it matters: The cost of travelling from one’s home to one’s workplace is not an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that each of the hospitals at which the appellant had worked had been his workplace so that the costs of travelling there were not an allowable deduction.
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:
