ICAS ICAS logo

Quicklinks

  1. About Us

    Find out about who we are and what we do here at ICAS.

  2. Find a CA

    Search our directory of individual CAs and Member organisations by name, location and professional criteria.

  3. CA Magazine

    View the latest issues of the dedicated magazine for ICAS Chartered Accountants.

  4. Contact Us

    Get in touch with ICAS by phone, email or post, with dedicated contacts for Members, Students and firms.

Login
  • Annual renewal
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Find a CA
  1. About us
    1. Governance
  2. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Careers support
    6. Mentoring
    7. CA Wellbeing
    8. More for Members
    9. Area networks
    10. International communities
    11. Get involved
    12. Top Young CAs
    13. Career breaks
    14. ICAS podcast
    15. Newly admitted members 2022
    16. Newly admitted members 2023
  3. CA Students
    1. Student information
    2. Student resources
    3. Learning requirements
    4. Learning updates
    5. Learning blog
    6. Totum Pro | Student discount card
    7. CA Student wellbeing
  4. Become a CA
    1. How to become a CA
    2. Routes to becoming a CA
    3. CA Stories
    4. Find a training agreement
    5. Why become a CA
    6. Qualification information
    7. University exemptions
  5. Employers
    1. Become an Authorised Training Office
    2. Resources for Authorised Training Offices
    3. Professional entry
    4. Apprenticeships
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Finance + Technology
    3. Finance + EDI
    4. Finance + Mental Fitness
    5. Finance + Leadership
    6. Finance + Sustainability
  10. Professional resources
    1. Anti-money laundering
    2. Audit and assurance
    3. Brexit
    4. Charities
    5. Coronavirus
    6. Corporate and financial reporting
    7. Business and governance
    8. Ethics
    9. Insolvency
    10. ICAS Research
    11. Pensions
    12. Practice
    13. Public sector
    14. Sustainability
    15. Tax
  11. CPD - professional development
    1. CPD courses and qualifications
    2. CPD news and updates
    3. CPD support and advice
  12. Regulation
    1. Complaints and sanctions
    2. Regulatory authorisations
    3. Guidance and help sheets
    4. Regulatory monitoring
  13. CA jobs
    1. CA jobs partner: Rutherford Cross
    2. Resources for your job search
    3. Advertise with CA jobs
    4. Hays | A Trusted ICAS CA Jobs Partner
    5. Azets | What's your ambition?
  14. Work at ICAS
    1. Business centres
    2. Meet our team
    3. Benefits
    4. Vacancies
    5. Imagine your career at ICAS
  15. Contact us
    1. Technical and regulation queries
    2. ICAS logo request

FTT Decision: ‘Kunjuring’ up the right result?

  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
Justine Riccomini By Justine Riccomini, Head of Taxation (Scottish Taxes, Employment and ICAS Tax Community)

25 March 2022

Main points

  • Mr Kunjur made a claim for living accommodation expenses whilst working on a student contract.
  • HMRC denied the claim and issued a penalty.
  • The FTT decided that the claim could be allowed in part even though the claim did not strictly fulfil the “wholly exclusively and necessarily” criteria at s.336 ITEPA 2003.

Justine Riccomini explains how a mature student was able to claim a deduction on living accommodation expenses which ostensibly failed the “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” test at s. 336 ITEPA 2003.

Overview

An interesting case came out of the Tax Chamber last October which concerns itself with the nature of expenses claims incurred whilst in employment and whether they are ultimately tax-deductible or not.

The decision, issued from the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) in October 2021, reminds us that the qualifying criteria for employment-related expenses are that the expense must be wholly, exclusively and necessarily” incurred in the proper performance of the employee’s duties, in accordance with section 336 ITEPA 2003. In this case, the employee was able to obtain tax relief for part of the accommodation costs he had incurred in south London, which is an extremely unusual outcome and based on a specific fact pattern.

Background

To fulfil his ambition to become a maxillofacial surgeon, Mr Kunjur needed to undertake a four-year full-time training contract. Having located a suitable contract in south London, Mr Kunjur, who was a dental surgeon residing in Southampton with his family, accepted the post, which was the only one available at that time. The contract also required Mr Kunjur to carry out occasional duties at another nearby south London hospital, as well as regular night duties, and to be within 30 minutes of the hospital if on call.

Mr Kunjur was faced with a daily commute to south London from Southampton and it soon became clear that the travelling time extended his day in such a way as to make it untenable, when added to the pressure of the work, the training and the night duty element of the role. Mr Kunjur was concerned that he might not be able to discharge his duties properly, which may lead to undesirable outcomes, such as a negligence claim from a patient.

Even though the possibility of employer-funded hospital accommodation and self-funded ad-hoc hotel accommodation might have been options, Mr Kunjur decided that the best option for him personally as a mature student was to take a modestly priced apartment nearby, where he could leave his belongings and study materials, and be alone to study in peace from Monday to Friday. He returned home at the weekends.

Mr Kunjur made a claim for a deduction on his tax return relating to the living accommodation expenses (note that his travelling expenses would not have qualified due to the permanent workplace rules) and this was denied by HMRC, who also imposed a penalty for negligent completion of a tax return.

Square peg, round hole

Despite HMRC’s plea that none of the tests (that the employee incurred the expenses “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” incurred in the proper performance of his duties and that he was obliged to incur and pay them), the FTT concluded that Mr Kunjur was on call during his training contract and thus was required to live at or near the hospital.

The strict term “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” was discussed many years ago, in Lomax (HMIT) v Newton (1953) 34 TC 558, when Vaisey J commented:

‘An expenditure may be ‘necessary’ for the holder of an office without being necessary to him in the performance of the duties of that office; it may be necessary in the performance of those duties without being exclusively referable to those duties; it may perhaps be both necessarily and exclusively, but still not wholly so referable. The words are indeed stringent and exacting; compliance with each and every one of them is obligatory if the benefit of the Rule is to be claimed successfully.’

The decisions made by the FTT are unusual in the context of the “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” requirements. The wholly and exclusively tests would appear not to have been met by virtue of Mr Kunjur having decided independently of the hospital that he would rent an apartment in Collier’s Wood, which was not an objective requirement of his work, but a personal choice which put him in a position to carry out his duties. There was a requirement by his employer to be on call and to be within 30 minutes of the hospital during those times, but Mr Kunjur had initially tried to carry out the role by remaining in his home in Southampton, and renting that particular flat in that particular location was not the thing which enabled him to actually carry out those duties day to day.

The FTT nevertheless considered that although Mr Kunjur’s use of the flat had some mixed-use purpose to it (which fails the wholly and exclusively tests), the primary purpose was work and study related – which together were deemed to be ‘in performance of’ his employment duties. His being on call whilst living in the flat influenced their decision heavily, as did the fact that members of his family did not visit the premises whenever he was staying there or at weekends for the duration of the lease.

However, the fact remains that the premises could have been used for a private purpose to a much greater extent if Mr Kunjur had been so inclined, because the property was let exclusively to Mr Kunjur and was thus available to him to use privately, whether he did or not.

The Tribunal also unusually chose to examine the scenario for a self-employed person – possibly influenced by the fact that Mr Kunjur had paid away the costs of the living accommodation himself and was claiming tax relief on them. The legislation at Income Tax (Trading & Other Income) Act 2005 allows for an apportionment to be made between private and business expenses. It appears that the FTT went on to direct HMRC and Mr Kunjur to decide between themselves on how the private use apportionment of the costs should be sensibly worked out on the basis of this legislation, which is nothing to do with employment tax legislation (under which Mr Kunjur’s student contract could be said to be governed).

Penalties: dismissed

The Tribunal also considered that the penalties should be wholly dismissed because the taxpayer had relied upon his accountants to get his tax return right – which is probably the right outcome, and several other case decisions have reached the same conclusion, because Mr Kunjur’s claim was made on the basis of advice received from his accountants and completed by them.

Was the right decision reached here?

In an employment tax related case it is not usually the Tax Tribunal’s practice to consider non-employment tax related tax legislation, as happened with the expenses here. It may well have seemed equitable to allow for part of the expenses because Mr Kunjur carried out some of the work he was contracted to do at the flat, but the fact remains that the expenses were not “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” incurred under the strict employment tax tests set down in law under Section 62 of ITEPA 2003.

Conclusion

This is a surprising outcome which it may not be advisable to place heavy reliance upon – and in any case, the fact it is an FTT decision means it has not set any precedents. It may be likely that HMRC will allow it to go unchallenged due to the small amount the taxpayer is due to receive back, without bothering to appeal: but on the other hand, they may consider that if a substantial amount of similar claims are likely to be made by other taxpayers on their tax returns as a result of this decision, they may consider it necessary to attempt to have that decision overturned, as a deterrent.

Smith strikes again as Court of Appeal overturns previous decisions on holiday pay

By Justine Riccomini, Head of Taxation (Scottish Taxes, Employment and ICAS Tax Community)

9 March 2022

Tax-free childcare proves more taxing than first thought

By Justine Riccomini

1 March 2022

2022-01-xero 2022-01-xero
ICAS logo

Footer links

  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • CA magazine

Connect with ICAS

  • Facebook (opens new window) Facebook Icon
  • Twitter (opens new window) Twitter Icon
  • LinkedIn (opens new window) LinkedIn Icon
  • Instagram (opens new window) Instagram Icon

ICAS is a member of the following bodies

  • Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (opens new window) Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies logo
  • Chartered Accountants Worldwide (opens new window) Chartered Accountants Worldwide logo
  • Global Accounting Alliance (opens new window) Global Accounting Alliance
  • International Federation of Accountants (opens new window) IFAC
  • Access Accountancy (opens new window) Access Acountancy

Charities

  • ICAS Foundation (opens new window) ICAS Foundation
  • SCABA (opens new window) scaba

Accreditations

  • ISO 9001 - RGB (opens new window)
© ICAS 2022

The mark and designation “CA” is a registered trade mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and is available for use in the UK and EU only to members of ICAS. If you are not a member of ICAS, you should not use the “CA” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to accountancy, tax or insolvency services. The mark and designation “Chartered Accountant” is a registered trade mark of ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and Chartered Accountants Ireland. If you are not a member of one of these organisations, you should not use the “Chartered Accountant” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to these services. Further restrictions on the use of these marks also apply where you are a member.

ICAS logo

Our cookie policy

ICAS.com uses cookies which are essential for our website to work. We would also like to use analytical cookies to help us improve our website and your user experience. Any data collected is anonymised. Please have a look at the further information in our cookie policy and confirm if you are happy for us to use analytical cookies: