Professional Subscriptions of retired Doctor

Professional Subscriptions of retired Doctor

Didn't find your answer?

A retired Doctor sits on various professional advisory Committees, it's unlikely he could do this if he did not continue paying his professional subscriptions. Could relief be claimed? HMRC makes reference to relief being eligible where connected to a job but not clear where there is no employer.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Replies (2)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By RetiredTax
31st Dec 2013 16:08

Professional Fees

My thoughts are that this position on the advisory committee would point towards this being the holding of "an office" and as such governed by ITEPA legislation. As such the relevent relief seems to be under

S343 :~ Deduction for professional membership fees, which states :~

"(1)A deduction from earnings from an employment is allowed for an amount paid in respect of a professional fee if

(a)the duties of the employment involve the practice of the profession to which the fee relates, and

(b)the registration, certification, licensing or other matter in respect of which the fee is payable is a condition, or one of alternative conditions, which must be met if that profession is to be practised in the performance of those duties." 

It would appear therefore that NO relief (perhaps unfairly given the "charitable" nature of the work undertaken) is available & HMRC are likely to be correct.

(my underscore)

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By ACDWebb
31st Dec 2013 18:17

Have a search for [2000] STC (SCD) 404 Singh v Williams (Inspect

Where the case note reads:

"Emoluments from office or employment – Deduction from emoluments – Expenses necessarily incurred in performance of duties of office or employment – Retired medical practitioner in receipt of occupational pension – Claim for deduction of professional subscription – Whether receipt of pension payments receipt of emolument"

And it was:

"Held – The definition of 'emoluments' in s 131(1) was not exhaustive. However, it was plain from the scheme of the 1988 Act that pension payments were not included as part of the chargeable emoluments dealt with by s 131 as pension payments were dealt with in s 133. Section 198 could not assist the taxpayer since he had decided voluntarily to continue his subscriptions and he had had no employment and no duties so that his expenditure could not be said to have been made necessarily in the performance of any duties. Moreover, the taxpayer could not succeed under s 201 as that provision required that payments were to be deducted from the emoluments of any office or employment if defrayed out of those emoluments. On the basis that in the absence of an exhaustive definition in the legislation the ordinary natural meaning of a word must be employed it was impossible to accept that the taxpayer's pension was an emolument on the basis that it was deferred remuneration ...

Accordingly, the taxpayer's appeal failed and the Revenue's amendment to the self-assessment return would be confirmed." All references are pre ITEPA.

If he has income arising from the posts then there might be hope, but otherwise it would seem that they would not be allowed generally against income

Thanks (2)