In TD Hanlin v HMRC (TC01078 – 20 April) a self-employed subcontractor (H) lived in Coventry but worked for a single contractor at Dungeness in Kent. He stayed at Dungeness during the week and claimed deductions for his travelling and subsistence expenses.
HMRC rejected the claims and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal specifically distinguishing Horton v Young 47 TC 60 as the appellant there had worked at several different sites whereas H had been ‘full-time working in one place for a period of years’.
Why it matters: In the 1952 case of Newsom v Robertson (33 TC 452) Lord Denning held that ‘a distinction must be drawn between living expenses and business expenses. In order to decide into which category to put the cost of travelling you must look to see...
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 TD Hanlin v HMRC (TC01078 – 20 April) a self-employed subcontractor (H) lived in Coventry but worked for a single contractor at Dungeness in Kent. He stayed at Dungeness during the week and claimed deductions for his travelling and subsistence expenses.
HMRC rejected the claims and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal specifically distinguishing Horton v Young 47 TC 60 as the appellant there had worked at several different sites whereas H had been ‘full-time working in one place for a period of years’.
Why it matters: In the 1952 case of Newsom v Robertson (33 TC 452) Lord Denning held that ‘a distinction must be drawn between living expenses and business expenses. In order to decide into which category to put the cost of travelling you must look to see...
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:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")