Healy v Revenue & Customs (Rev 1) [2015] UKFTT 233 (TC) (28 May 2015)

Healy v Revenue & Customs (Rev 1) [2015] UKFTT 233 (TC) (28 May 2015)

The Tribunal found that the Appellant had a dual purpose in incurring accommodation expenses: business purpose for acting engagement and non-business purpose for hosting visitors. The 'wholly and exclusively' test in s 34(1) ITTOIA was not satisfied. No identifiable proportion of the expense was shown to be solely for trade, so apportionment under s 34(2) ITTOIA was not allowed.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 233 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Tim Healy; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal / Fresh Hearing After Upper Tribunal Remittal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Deductions, Wholly and Exclusively Test, Dual Purpose Expenditure, Apportionment
Tax Law Income Tax Deductions Wholly and Exclusively Test Dual Purpose Expenditure Apportionment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tim Healy

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Appeal / Fresh Hearing After Upper Tribunal Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accommodation expenses incurred by an actor for a London flat during a theatre engagement are deductible under s 34(1)(a) ITTOIA as wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade
  2. 2 Whether dual purpose (business and personal) precludes deduction
  3. 3 Whether apportionment under s 34(2) ITTOIA is possible

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Appellant had a dual purpose in incurring accommodation expenses: business purpose for acting engagement and non-business purpose for hosting visitors. The 'wholly and exclusively' test in s 34(1) ITTOIA was not satisfied. No identifiable proportion of the expense was shown to be solely for trade, so apportionment under s 34(2) ITTOIA was not allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No deduction allowed for accommodation expenses
  • Claims for subsistence and taxi fares not reconsidered; findings are res judicata