Backcare Awareness Week
Medical and dental expenses will not be allowed for tax under the general principles: unless it can be proved that the expense, or an identifiable proportion of the expense, was incurred Wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade.
· It is extremely difficult to prove that there is no private benefit associated with medical expenses.
· Recent case law indicates that one way to obtain a deduction is by proving that the cost is totally unnecessary for private wellbeing. This is in most cases this is impossible but you never know.
Some cases below show the complexity of the situation
In Parsons v HMRC [2010 UKFTT 110 (TC), a stunt performer was allowed a deduction for:
· The cost of a private operation on his knee. The cost of the operation was held to be wholly and exclusively for the purposes of his trade because it was not essential to his private life; he could have waited and had the operation under the NHS. It was essential to his trade; he could not perform with a bad knee.
· The cost of back treatment and massage. On the same principles as his knee operation, the work was not essential to his private life, but he could not perform with a bad back/aching muscles.
In Prince v Mapp [1969] 46 TC 169 a guitar player was denied tax relief for:
· The cost of an operation on his hand. Although the operation was essential to his trade, without a functioning hand he could not play his instrument, he played guitar for pleasure too. There was duality of purpose and it was impossible to apportion the cost of the operation between business and pleasure.
In Norman v Golder [1944] 26 TC 293 a shorthand writer was denied tax relief for:
· The cost of an operation on his hand. He could not write without the operation, the problem was created by the nature of his work. The court agreed on general principles that there was duality of purpose so relief was denied.
If you have any questions on any medical expenses you may have please contact us.
