Saturation Diver Can Deduct Physical Fitness Expenses from Income Tax

11th December 2020 By

Self-employed people are only permitted to deduct from their Income Tax bills those expenses that are incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purposes of their trade or occupation. That is a very demanding test but, in a guideline case, it was passed by a saturation diver who spent heavily on maintaining his physical fitness.

The diver appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) after HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) disallowed his claim for an Income Tax deduction in respect of expenses involved in pursuing a rigorous exercise regime. HMRC contended that, whilst his work required him to keep fit, the costs of doing so served a dual purpose in that they provided a personal benefit to him as a living human being.

Ruling on the matter, the FTT noted that the diver’s job, which involved working at depths of up to 150 metres, required him to live in a pressurised environment for days or weeks on end. Saturation diving is a dangerous occupation and a lack of fitness can have fatal results. Those who used his services enforced minimum standards of fitness and, if he failed to attain them, he could not work.

In upholding his appeal, the FTT found that his sole motive and purpose in engaging in a physical regime, which was by any measure extreme, for two to three hours daily was to maintain the level of lung, heart and muscular fitness required by his occupation. The physical necessities of saturation diving dictated his training methods, their duration and location.

His regime was far removed from his personal physical needs and it could not be reasonably inferred that he undertook such a high level of training because of a subconscious motive of keeping fit as a human being. Any improvement in his fitness was incidental and his regime entailed bodily stress to which he would not otherwise subject himself. The FTT concluded that there was no duality of purpose in his expenditure on fitness training and that such expenditure was thus tax deductible.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...

Defiance of Family Court Orders Will Always End Badly

10th April, 2024 By

Custodial sentences very rarely come into play in the family courts. Where there have been repeated breaches of court orders, however, judges may have little choice but to clamp down. This was illustrated in the High Court during committal proceedings that stemmed from a child custody dispute. The background to the case involved contested proceedings between the father and mother of a young child. These concluded with a court order establishing that the child – a daughter – would live with the mother. Three months later the daughter travelled with...

Claim for SDLT Relief on Annex Unsuccessful

8th April, 2024 By

When buying a property consisting of more than one residence, it may be possible to claim multiple dwellings relief (MDR) against Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). However, there are certain conditions that must be met for an MDR claim to succeed, as a recent case illustrates. A property was purchased for £1.8 million. Prior to the purchase, the buyer had agreed with the seller that he would be allowed to carry out works to construct a self-contained annex at the property. The buyer's SDLT return included a claim for MDR...

Divorce – Alleged Bigamy Raised in Financial Remedies Dispute

5th April, 2024 By

The issue of bigamy and its potential impact on a person's ability to seek financial remedies in a divorce came under the legal spotlight recently. A husband made an application to strike out his wife's financial remedies claim on the basis that she had committed bigamy and deceived him into a marriage when she knew she was not free to marry. This deceit, he claimed, was so egregious that, as a matter of public policy, she should be debarred from pursuing any claim for financial remedies against him. The husband based...