Newth Talks Tax: Subcontractors' travel

If a company paid for motor and travel, the individuals would have to prove that the expenditure was 'necessarily incurred' in order to avoid a benefit in kind charge. That is more diffuclt than the trading 'wholly and exclusively' principle.

Would the outcome of Powell v Jackman have been different if Powell had traded through a limited company.

The case law was established at that time for self-employment but does that case law automatically cross-over into a Ltd scenario ?

@John Newth
An odd case of HMRC requiring you to make a bigger claim than common-sense would dictate, in order to qualify at all !

I don't suppose HMRC ever claimed that taxation is carbon-neutral ...

In the case of the locum dentist, Mike, the only sure way of claiming the travel would have been for the dentist to go to his workplace, then drive back to collect the supplies before returning to work. I don't think that collecting the supplies on the way home would have helped the travel claim.

I've recently agreed an enquiry for an actor. In the first instance HMRC told me that despite working from home, learning lines and actions etc there, my client wasn't working until he got to the set or the theatre and quoted Newsom v Robertson. In that case a solicitor had an office but claimed travel from home to court. I felt this was different from my own client who didn't have an office anywhere else other than home and couldn't be expected to move every time he signed a new contract. After that comment HMRC went silent on that point.

So, to qualify on travel to supplier, should the dentist have visited the supplier from his place of work, then gone home from there ? Or should he have returned to the place of work, then gone home ?