Taxation logo taxation mission text

Since 1927 the leading authority on tax law, practice and administration

Breast implants

Oct 3, 2008, 08:42 AM
Authors : Richard
Show link : Yes
Show link in individual comments : No
Show Printer-friendly URLs list : Yes
User can post comments : No
Display comments : No
Sticky at top of lists : No
Promoted to front page : No
Premium content : No
Feature in listings page : No
Post date : Oct 3, 2008, 08:42 AM
My article in Taxation this week tries to get to grips with (in view of what follows perhaps that’s not the best way of putting it) ‘duality of purpose’, which would prevent a claim for expenses being allowed as not satisfying the ‘wholly and exclusively’ rules for employed or self-employed taxpayers.
Among other things, what I have difficulty with is reconciling the Mallalieu v Drummond decision, which disallowed the cost of a female barristers court clothes, with HMRC’s rules that, for example, TV personalities may be able to get tax relief for the cost of cosmetic surgery.
One reader has advised me that this reminded him of a case involving a model’s breast enlargements.
HMRC refused a claim for a tax deduction on ‘duality’ (I know, I know!) grounds.
The accountants then claimed capital allowances, which were likewise refused on the grounds that a person cannot be ‘plant’.
This did start me wondering (well, someone’s got to think about these things) as to whether a capital allowances claim for just the implants themselves – rather than the whole cost of the operation, which would relate to the person – might have been more successful.
After all, the clue is in the terminology isn’t it: plant, implant?

There’s plenty of tax to get to grips with in
Tags :
Tax Topic Tags :
  • Blog
back to top icon