aop
ad

Judgment rules ACCA student's course fees are not tax deductible

by Nicholas Neveling

27 Mar 2008

A trainee accountant has failed in a bid to claim the cost of his training courses back against tax.

DW Perrin, now a member of ACCA, claimed tax deductions of £2,491.69 and £2,590.50 on his 2004/05 and 2005/06 self-assessment tax returns for fees paid to study for his qualification.

Perrin argued that the training was a job requirement and that the costs of his studies should therefore be tax deductible as they were incurred exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of his employment.

Mahmood Poptam, a partner from the firm where Perrin trained, acted as a witness in the case and confirmed that attendance at training courses was part of the duties of staff employed on training contracts.

Poptam said that, in his view, Perrin’s attendance at the training courses was in the performance of the duties of his employment.

But special commissioner Charles Hellier backed HM Revenue & Customs’ decision to amend Perrin’s self-assessment returns and disallow the deductions.

Hellier said that Perrin had taken some of his courses on Saturday, when he was not paid by the firm he worked for, and that this suggested that attendance at the courses was not part of his duties at the firm. If Perrin had worked overtime on a Saturday or Sunday he would have been paid.

Hellier also pointed out that the firm, not named in the judgment, offered study leave to trainees, which pointed to time away from duties at the practice.

‘Mr Perrin was a trainee accountant… it seems to me that he was not paid for attending the courses, but for his work in the firm’s business,’ Hellier said in his judgment.

Hellier added that even if he had found that the training costs were necessary for Perrin to execute his duties, it could not be argued that the training was exclusively for this purpose.

The judgment said: ‘Mr Perrin would have found it difficult to obtain his qualification without the courses and, at least to some extent, it must have been that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of getting that qualification and thus not exclusively incurred in the performance of his duties.’

Visitor comments Add your comment

Well there's a surprise!

Obviously he failed to study basic tax - this matter has been clearly decided on years ago so why did he feel his case was any different?

Posted by: John, 27 Mar 2008 | 00:00

Add your comment
display:none

Add your comment

We won't publish your address


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

Your comment will be moderated before publication

Submit
  • Digg
  • Tweet

Newsletters

Get the latest financial news sent directly to your inbox

  • Best Practice
  • Business
  • Daily Newsletter
  • Essentials

Careers

Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles

Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you

Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you

Briefings

Supplier Statement Reconciliations cover

Supplier statement reconciliations: Manual chore or critical value adding process?

By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.

7 Building Blocks cover

7 building blocks for business growth

Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities