My client was a self-employed electrician for 4 years before accepting full-time employment. HMRC, having accepted that he is an itinerant worker as defined in Horton v Young for 3 of those years, has disallowed his travel expenses for 2014 on the grounds that he was engaged on only one site in that tax year (for 10 months, the other two being unemployed). Is this decision based on case-law, or should I try the 1st tier Tribunal?
Brian
Replies (3)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Tim Healy was in Billy Elliot for nearly 11 months. I do not think the costs of his travel from Chester to London were ever in dispute, and the costs of his accommodation were only disallowed because he had taken a flat that had a spare room for guests (and that the expenditure was not then capable of apportionment).
Mellor may be of some assistance, but neither HMRC nor the tribunal understand the precedents properly and seem, these days, to expect traders to be omnipresent.
If your client worked at another site immediately before or immediately after the 10 month period - I'd be arguing that he was indeed itinerant.
I think HMRC are wrong in focusing on there only being 1 site in the tax year, and perhaps they should be looking at a 12 month rolling period instead.
It seems like they are just using that arbitrary period to make your client fit into the category of only having 1 workplace.