Vaccinations for overseas travel for self employed

Vaccinations for overseas travel for self employed

Didn't find your answer?

I have a self employed client who has had to pay for a series of vaccinations to enable him to take up an assignment overseas.  The only reason he has travelled abroad is for this assignment and he wouldn't have had to have these vaccinations if he hadn't gone to this country.
Can we claim a deduction for tax for these?
I suspect that there is going to be a private benefit (of not dying from a terrible disease) that will catch us out?
Thanks
 

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Steve Kesby
11th Aug 2015 17:46

Prince v Mapp

I suspect that you're right, and that HMRC might successfully argue that the cost is both for the purposes of the trade, AND the taxpayer's personal benefit.

One might try to argue, based on Prince v Mapp, that the only purposes of the expenditure is to allow the trader to travel safely to the foreign location.

Harry Prince (not to be confused with Prince Harry) was a part-time professional guitar player, whose dayjob was as a draughtsman. He did himself an injury in his day job that meant he was unable to play the guitar, without surgery.

He could function perfectly well in everyday life, including his day job, following the injury. He just couldn't play the guitar properly.

So he paid for the surgery wholly for the purpose of enabling him to play the guitar. The court accepted that that was the sole purpose, and would have allowed the expenditure, but for the fact that Harry also played his guitar as a hobby.

Your client is, you are suggesting, having travel jabs solely for the purpose of travelling safely to the foreign location for this particular assignment.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By hje
11th Aug 2015 18:47

To refer

to Steve's answer (some time ago) : https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/anyanswers/question/vaccinations

Thanks (1)
By Steve Kesby
12th Aug 2015 10:21

Yes but...

... the previous answer related to a director of their own company, rather than someone that is self-employed, which does change the issue.

I was concerned I had been hoist by own petard for a moment!

Thanks (2)
Replying to Cheshire:
Red Leader
By Red Leader
12th Aug 2015 10:32

BTW

You can get these jabs for free from your GP. I had a whole series recently for foreign travel.

Maybe he had to get them at very short notice and so went private.

Thanks (1)
By Steve Kesby
12th Aug 2015 11:01

100% sure Basil?

I don't disagree with you. We are, after all, making exactly the same point.

However, I don't think it is 100%.

We need to remember that the courts (and it has found a recent fashion in the tribunals) have, in the past, imposed a subconscious purpose test (Mallalieu v Drummond). I suspect, as the OP says, that the taxpayer here could be argued as having a subconscious purpose of not wanting to suffer, or die, from a terrible tropical disease.

There is contrary case law, in the form of Norman v Golder and Murgatroyd v Evan-Jackson. So I would be loathed, personally, to rate the prospects of our argument being successful as high as 100%.

In our favour, there is also the FTT case of Parsons, but I think saying 100% is putting too many eggs in the pudding.

Thanks (1)
By Steve Kesby
12th Aug 2015 11:57

Mallalieu v Drummond

Lady Mallalieu had no intention of wearing her drab clothes anytime else than whilst she was "on duty". Her subconscious purpose of being warm and decent can only, therefore, have subsisted while she was "on duty".

I'm sure the OP's client only wants to avoid contracting a tropical disease at the location to which they intend to travel, but that does not preclude their personal interest as being a (possibly subconsious) purpose of the expenditure, which could be used to deny relief.

The argument is there. It is wrong to deny that it is not. It is wrong to deny its merit. There is, in our opinions, greater merit in the opposing view, but that does not mean that it will prevail with the certainty that you have suggested.

I have never discussed Norman v Golder and Murgatroyd v Evans-Jackson at length with anyone. They do not merit discussion at length. I think you're referring to THIS THREAD.

Thanks (1)
Caroline
By accountantccole
12th Aug 2015 17:14

Thanks all
And Moira Stewart says "Tax doesn't have to be taxing!"

 

Thanks (0)