HMRC wins Samadian mileage tribunal

 

A first-tier tribunal ruled that a doctor’s business mileage claims to and from his home office and a private hospital were not wholly and exclusively allowable expenditure.

The tribunal judges decided the case in favour of HMRC in late January. They ruled that Dr Samadian had a dedicated office in his home that he needed for professional activity, but did not accept the home office as a starting point for calculating private practice business mileage for habitual journeys.

The tribunal decision for Dr Samadian V HMRC TC/2010/03747 was reached on 28 January, but the formal document has not yet been published online.

This summary is based on an analysis by Abbey Tax, which worked with one of the accountants involved in the case.

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments
JAADAMS's picture

Which clients to worry about?

JAADAMS | | Permalink

My first reaction on reading this post was - havent HMRC got better things to do? How much is involved ? And why now?

But then I looked at the very clear and concise Abbey Tax pdf file. What was interesting was the detail considered in the work room - tables, couch, filing cabinet, prescription pads - would you believe!

And then I started to worry about some of my clients. Even myself with two offices? As Rachael says - its the regularity that is key here.

 

Doh?

The Black Knight | | Permalink

hasn't that always been the case? Landmark?

Maybe someone should have read Newsom v Robertson 1952.

Lord Denning !!!

Am I another one

justsotax | | Permalink

not shocked.....it seems there hasn't been any rule changes.  

George Attazder's picture

I agree...

George Attazder | | Permalink

... with The Black Knight and justsotax.

Until we see the case transcript though, it's possible that there's something we're missing. The tribunal referred to the three major precedents, as well as the FTT decision in Manders and for some obscure reason also referred to Mallalieu v Drummond.

I'm surprised by the chap that got the expenses allowed at the Independent Review in the other case (the member post) that Rachel's referring to, as the position seems similar, ie that all of the individual's "being a doctor" activities occurred at regular venues, rather than there being any degree of itinerancy.

Having your office at the place you personally choose to live is irrelevant if you regularly go somewhere else to do the thing it is that you do.

As for the "landmark" element of recognising the home office as a business base, I'd suggest that the tribunal erred. It's not where the business is based, but where the person that carries on the business chooses to base himself.

Yuk.

jiatbanus | | Permalink

Guess they thought they were just simplifying the tax system and that the cost was worth it, whatever that cost was. I suppose someone will pay another consultancy to calculate and justify.

Personal message to HMRC.

"You ********** of **************** ************, we ************* be **************** much *************

********** ** *********** ********* ********* ************** ************".

Please edit to express your own feelings about this.

jiatbanus.

Excuse me ?    1 thanks

The Black Knight | | Permalink

This could hardly be HMRC's fault?

It's their Job to challenge and it is the tax payer that has exercised his right to appeal.

The tribunal has merely agreed with what was already thought to be the law, and what many competent advisers would have advised anyway.

I presume the stars are meant to be rude words?

You're excused.

jiatbanus | | Permalink

Common sense is illegal in public service.

The asterisks are what I think that you would like to say, but you just said what I expect.

Limited Companies

jkd | | Permalink

So how does this ruling affect limited companies which are registered and based from home ?

Limited Companies

thehaggis | | Permalink

It's a different test for office holder and employees.  Wholly and exclusively isn't an issue.

That is

The Black Knight | | Permalink

thehaggis wrote:

It's a different test for office holder and employees.  Wholly and exclusively isn't an issue.

employee = Wholly and exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of duties

Business/ company = wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade.

Does that help?

 

Yes it still applies to limited companies...there is no change to the right advice.

Allowable travel when your place of business or work is not home.

This is a minefield on its own.

This is also often a secondary issue in Grey IR35 cases that the revenue used to pick up on pre IR35 but have now lost that tax revenue.

 

Nonsense

thehaggis | | Permalink

General expenses have to be wholly exclusively and necessarily incurred. (s336 ITEPA)

Travel expenses only have to be necessarily incurred (s337 ITEPA).  This was true even under s198 ICTA'88 and 189 ICTA'70.  

Agreed different test for Travel

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Agreed different test for travel.

Blinded by Mallalieu v Drummond mentioned above which was duality of purpose.

in performance of duties still applies though.