Snowdon v Charnock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 June 2001 |
| Date | 04 June 2001 |
| Court | Special Commissioners (UK) |
special commissioners decision
Dr Nuala Brice.
1. Dr Everest Snowdon MB ChB ("the appellant") appeals against an amendment to self-assessment dated 24 October 2000. The amendment showed additional tax due of £905.20. This was because the Inland Revenue had disallowed a claim by the appellant to deduct from the emoluments of his employment for the year 1998-99 the sum of £2,263 which the appellant had expended on personal psychotherapy sessions.
2. At the relevant time Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 section 198 subsec-or-para (1)s. 198(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") provided:
If the holder of an office or employment is necessarily obliged to incur and defray out of the emoluments of that office or employment the expenses of travelling in the performance of the duties of the office or employment … or otherwise to expend money wholly exclusively and necessarily in the performance of those duties, there may be deducted from the emoluments to be assessed the expenses so necessarily incurred and defrayed.
3. The issue in the appeal was whether the appellant was necessarily obliged to incur the expenses of the personal psychotherapy sessions wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of his employment.
4. A small bundle of documents was produced by the appellant and a larger bundle by the respondent. The latter contained a statement of facts.
5. From the evidence before me I find the following facts.
6. The appellant is a doctor and a psychiatrist. Those qualifications would permit him to act as a psychotherapist but the appellant wished to undertake specific training so as to get a special qualification in psychotherapy.
7. The appellant was employed by an NHS trust ("the trust"). The contract of employment was evidenced by a letter from the trust which was re-printed on 2 June 2000. The letter described the employment as "participation in a training programme" and offered a placement as a "Specialist Registrar in Psychotherapy". The placement was dependent upon the appellant continuing to hold a national training number or a visiting training number. The employment was pensionable and was subject to the deduction of superannuation contributions. The hours of duty were the standard working week of 40 hours and a standard salary was to be paid. The letter stated that the duties of the post were defined in the job description.
8. The job description described the post as "Higher Specialist Registrar in Psychotherapy". The post was a training post and was designed to train psychotherapists. The main duties of the post were to conduct consultation interviews of new patients referred for psychotherapy; to conduct psychotherapy with patients accepted for treatment; and to undertake some administrative duties. However, the job description made it clear that the appointment was of a person in training and that the overall aim was to ensure that specialist registrars were prepared for roles as consultant psychotherapists in the National Health Service. The job description stated that the training requirements of the Royal College of Psychiatrists would be met. There was a shared programme of lectures, seminars and supervised clinical work. In addition, each trainee had an individual tutor. The job description stated that "all trainees are expected to be in at least three times weekly personal therapy". It was a specified condition of the employment that "the successful candidate is expected to be undergoing personal psychotherapy during the terms of the appointment".
9. An extract from a document prepared by the Royal College of Psychiatrists was produced by the appellant. This indicated that all psychotherapists needed to recognise how their own personality and life experience affected their ability to be objective. They might otherwise be driven, without recognising it, to impose their own solutions on the life problems of their patients. Personal psychotherapy was a required element of training for senior registrars. Usually about 50 per cent of the costs involved were met by the employer. The document contained the following paragraph:
Trainees specialising in analytical psychotherapy should acquire additional self-awareness and self-understanding ("insight") through some form of personal analytic experience. The guidance and approval of a consultant psychotherapist, tutor in psychotherapy, or some other appropriate adviser should be carefully considered by the trainee when selecting a therapist. The theoretical basis of analytic psychotherapy will remain abstract unless firmly integrated with this experience of personal psychotherapy and supervised work with patients.
10. The conditions of the appellant's employment were clarified in two letters written by the trust. The first was written on 8 June 2000 at the request of the appellant. It was signed by the training programme director of the trust and was addressed "To whom it may concern". It read:
This is to confirm that Dr Everest Snowdon worked here as a specialist Registrar trainee in Adult Psychotherapy between 1.11.97 and 31.10.99. One of the essential features of training posts in Adult Psychotherapy at the Trust is for the trainee to undergo personal therapy which is wholly, exclusively and necessarily one of the duties of these posts. The reason personal therapy is a duty of the post is that it allows the trainee to put himself or herself in the "shoes" of the patient. Other duties of the post are closely allied with the above duty and include conducting consultation interviews and making clinical assessments of new patients referred for psychotherapy, conducting psychotherapy with patients accepted for treatment at the clinic and administrative duties, management training and participation in weekly duty rota.
11. The second letter was written by the director of academic services to the respondent on 9 April 2001. That letter confirmed that personal psychotherapy was a condition of the employment although the cost of personal therapy was normally borne by the post holder. In addition the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee (No 2)
...Colquhoun (HMIT)TAXELR (1925) 10 TC 118; [1926] AC 1 Simpson v TateTAXELR (1925) 9 TC 314; [1925] 2 KB 214 Snowdon v Charnock (HMIT)SCD (2001) Sp C 282 Income tax - Employment - Deduction - Expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in performance of duties of employment - Traini......
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Decadt
...to in the judgment: Blackwell (HMIT) v MillsTAX (1945) 26 TC 468 Fitzpatrick v IR CommrsTAX [1994] BTC 66 Snowdon v Charnock (HMIT)SCD (2001) Sp C 282 Income tax - Employment - Deduction - Expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in performance of duties of employment - Taxpaye......
-
J & A Young (Leicester) Ltd and Others
...of employment.[43] In the same vein, Mr Vallat referred to the decision of the Special Commissioners in Snowdon v Charnock (HMIT) SCD(2001) Sp C 282.[44] Mr Vallat also submitted that his interpretation of paragraph 10 was consistent with the published purpose of the legislation and referre......
-
Perrin v HM Revenue and Customs
...for the Appellant and attending the courses. The Parties' Arguments 8. Mr Brooks accepts the distinction drawn in Snowdon v CharnockSCD(2001) Sp C 282 between expenditure incurred in the performance of duties (which is deductible) and expenditure to put the taxpayer in a position better to ......