Self-employed travel - Samadian case

Self-employed travel - Samadian case

Didn't find your answer?

Has anyone had a look at the Upper Tribunal decision on this, published a couple of weeks ago? Whilst it reaches the same conclusion as the first tier tribunal, the reasoning has changed. It seems to me that now, even if a sole trader does a substantial majority of his work at a home-office, travel to other business locations will not be deductible if those other places are permanent or long term secondary work bases. Only truly itinerant businesses such as the bricklayer in the Horton case can still get relief.  The decision is here if anyone wants to read it

Replies (1)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Steve Kesby
06th Feb 2014 09:46

Contrary...

... to Mike Truman's article in Taxation today and AbbeyTax claiming that it would be a landmark case, it seems to me a wholly unremarkable decision.

The point is that it's possible to both be within Horton v Young, with respect to travel to patient's/client's premises, and within Newsom v Robertson, with respect to home to base travel, notwithstanding that there may be an office at home, which may even itself be a base.

If the nature of the journey is that it is simultaneously both a base to base journey and a home to base journey, you have expenditure that hasn't been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business.

It's simply clarity, rather than the breaking of new ground. And it creates a parity with the situation that applies to the employed, that has always been there in reality.

Thanks (1)