Can you deduct for travel from home to work in the following circumstances?
A self employed dentist is running a small internet based business from home. Packaged orders are loaded into his vehicle in the morning and driven to the post office.
From there he drives to his dental practice and works as a dentist. After work he drives home and packages orders ready for the next day. All stock is stored at home.
Would travel between a, home and the post office b, post office and dentist c, dentist and home count as deductible travel.
I would assume if there are no orders to drop off then the commuting rule would apply in the morning. I would also assume that traveling from the dentist to home to check orders would not incur the rule even if no orders have been made.
Replies (28)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Home to Post Office is business. To and from the dental surgery is ordinary commuting, imho.
Surely the main purpose of the morning journey is to travel to the dentist. The drop off at the post office is incidental. I would think HMRC will challenge the deduction.
Surely the main purpose of the morning journey is to travel to the dentist. The drop off at the post office is incidental. I would think HMRC will challenge the deduction.
The purpose of the journey to the Post Office is to post the parcels.
Then he has another journey to his job. Which is commuting.
In my opinion.
How much is involved here ? A few quid ?
Is the Post Office out of his way and is he incurring extra miles by going to the post office and then going to work? I would have said you could make a case to claim the difference between the journey from home to his practice and home to Post Office to his practice.
I wouldn't be looking at an apportionment of that part of the journey, things could get daft. Take into consideration that the journey to the post office involves the transit of packages, adding to the weight carried and so increasing fuel costs. How do you then calculate a fair apportionment.
Besides, I can't image we are talking about a huge amount. In the grand scheme of things, who will care?
There's a bigger issue.
It's not a journey to work with a detour to the Post Office.
It's a journey to the Post Office, followed by a journey to work.
It's all academic of course, as it'll depend on what the records say.
Well he must be charging less than my dentist if he needs this other income. Wouldn't it just be taxable at 40% so what is the point? The journey to the post office could be miles given so many are closing down.
Can we have a map please?
The relevant test is wholly and exclusively.
I think it is accepted that home to dental practice is non-allowable commuting.
If the post office is en route to the dental practice, then the first leg, to the post office, is, fatally, being undertaken for not one, but two purposes.
The decision in Sargent v Barnes (see BIM37630) needs to be borne in mind.
If the post office is en route to the dental practice, then the first leg, to the post office, is, fatally, being undertaken for not one, but two purposes.
In that case, Steve, I would go home before setting out for the dental surgery, thereby doubling my claim for mileage.
But what then is the purpose of the separate trip to the post office, when he's going to be passing it anyway?
He's not passing it. There's a detour to the Post Office. In any case, he may not do these journeys immediately after one another.
The purpose of his journey to and from the Post Office is to take packets for delivery.
I don't see how, as lion suggested, a separate and distinct trip to the PO prior to a completely new trip to the dental surgery could in any way be construed to be "a detour".
The reality is, of course, that he only has to record the business journeys at 45p a mile. If he puts down "Post Office and back" 150 miles (about the average distance to a Post Office these days) and doesn't need to record his private journey to work, how is any accountant or HMRC officer going to be able to debate this?
But if one of its purposes is to make allowable a journey that would otherwise be disallowable as part of the dental commute, then it has a non-business purpose.
But I wasn't the one that suggested that anything was a detour.
Ah, Steve - you spend too much time in the Virtual Reality of Theoryland.
Come and live with us in the Real World.
Well in the real world, I'd have wanted to know the distances and directions involved (the map) before boldly stating that home to PO was allowable, only to find out later that the claim just wasn't worth the aggravation. But here we are both on the internet.
I'm not sure what it is you imagine I do for a living.
Well in the real world, I'd have wanted to know the distances and directions involved (the map) before boldly stating that home to PO was allowable, only to find out later that the claim just wasn't worth the aggravation. But here we are both on the internet.
Indeed - nowt better to do on a Friday afternoon.
IMO, any deductible expenditure should be calculated as follows:
A. Calculate the mileage from home to dental surgery via the detour to the post office.
B. Calculate the mileage for a direct trip from home to the surgery (i.e. without the detour to the P.O.)
C. Subtract B from A
It can be argued that C is mileage that has been incurred wholly and exclusively and, hence, is allowable. Naturally if that mileage is only a mile or two, then it's probably not worth the effort . .but that's a value judgement for the taxpayer to take o'course . .
Surely the question is what is the main purpose for the journey. 1 To go to the Post Office to mail parcels. 2 The continuation of the journey to be a dentist.
I dont think the idea of direct mileage via the PO less direct mileage to dentist surgery holds water. One has to use triangulation. From what is said the jorney to postoffice is tax deductable the remainder is not
Quite.
The "extra mileage" theory implies that the Post Office can only be visited on the taxpayer's way to work.
Over complication.
He goes to the Post Office for a single purpose. To drop off parcels for his other work. Hence deductible.
What he does afterwards is no concern to anyone. Not to HMRC because he is not claiming any mileage. Maybe he has a coffee first at Costa? Who cares.
Lots of professional accountants on this thread taking a rather blase attitude to case law.
I think you must mean, how the case law may be relevant. :P
This is an area where, I think, even the tribunals have lost their way.