Share this content
0
2
1663

Physiotherapy - wholly and exclusively?

Here is the scenario.  A client who happens to be a professional rock climber as incurred roughly £1,400 of expenditure during the last tax year in physiotherapy costs and would like to claim these costs against their income.

My instinct here is that it is not wholly and exclusively for the pupose of the trade and therefore the costs can't be claimed.  The case of Norman v Golder (1944) does back this up.

However I have some sympathy here for the client.  Their income is derived from coaching, sponsorship deals and the occasional TV appearance.  The sponsorship deals are based on this person being one of the top UK climbers.  This involves climbing new routes both in the UK and overseas, which in itself can and does lead to this person injuring themselves.  My thought process here is that without the physio they would more than likely recover, but in a longer time frame which could jeopardize their sponsorship deals and ability to coach other people (ie the level of income could suffer).

What are other AW users opinions on this?  Anyone had something similar in the past?

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By pawncob
04th Oct 2011 17:47

physio

If the costs were incurred to enable him to IMPROVE his climbing ability there wouldn't be a problem, so I don't see any duality of purpose here. If he wasn't a professional rock climber, he wouldn't need the physio.

Thanks (0)

Not quite on all fours...

... but the FTT case of Parsons may assist.  http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2010/TC00421.html

Parsons was a stuntman that paid for various private treatments.  Parsons' argument was essentially that he could have received NHS treatment, but paid for private treatment simply to expedite recovery, so that he could go on working.

Thanks (1)