The general rule for employees’ expenses: in the performance of the duties: Fitzpatrick v CIR
The case of Fitzpatrick v CIR (66TC407) contains a recent restatement by the House ofLords of the traditionally stringent and restrictive approach of the Courts to definingthe duties of the employment.
The case concerned journalists and other employees in the newspaper industry whoreceived an allowance from their employer to pay for the purchase of other newspapers thatthey mostly read at home. It was not disputed that the allowance was a taxable emolumentbut they argued for a deduction for the amount spent because reading other newspapers waspart of the duties of their employment.
It was accepted by the Courts that the purpose of the journalists in reading othernewspapers was to perform their duties more efficiently. It was also accepted that thereading of other newspapers was encouraged or even required by their employers.Nevertheless, no deduction was allowed.
Lord Templeman commented on page 521 that:
“a journalist does not purchase and read newspapers in the performance of hisduties but for the purpose of ensuring that he will carry out his duties efficiently. Ifdeductions of this kind were allowed in one case every journalist or other similaremployee would claim to be entitled to deduct the payment made by him for every newspaperand periodical which he chose to purchase “…and there would be no end to it”.A sports reporter is employed to report sport, not to read newspapers, a photographer isemployed to produce pictures for his newspaper not to study the pictures of others. Aneditor is employed to select, draft and arrange items in his newspaper, not to read othernewspapers. A journalist who reads newspapers does so in order to be able to perform hisduties to the highest possible standard but he does not read “in the performance ofhis duties”.”