UKFTT 110 (2010) Parsons v HMRC

Allowable expenditure - Taxpayer won

Case Summary:

Mr Parsons is a self employed stunt performer who had several injuries. He had operations to have them fixed and claimed the cost as wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade. Evidence was presented about how knee operations, chiropractic sessions, massage, fitness training, teeth repair were all essential so he could get and perform work.

The First Tier Tribunal said in allowing all expenditure apart from the fitness training:

“Health is a human need, and even if it is impossible to work without being healthy, medical expenses incurred to maintain health are at least in part “in part for the advantage and benefit of the taxpayer as a living human being”.  Medical expenses therefore will normally serve a dual purpose and will not satisfy the “exclusivity” test.  However, where medical expenses can be said to be of “a special character dictated by the occupation as a matter of physical necessity”, the Tribunal considers that it may be possible to conclude that the expenses were “wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade or profession”, and that any benefit as a human being is merely an “unavoidable effect” rather than a purpose of the expenditure.”