Can Psychotherapy a deductible? (self-employed sole trader).

[STDFR33]

There's case law for stuntmen/women; Parson vs HMRC.

It involved a stuntman that required knee surgery. The NHS waiting time for the surgery was 12 months or more. He went private so that he could return to work and more quickly.

Knee surgery in this case wouldn't have been required for a less physically demanding job and / or normal day to day activities.

The court determined that the cost of going private was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his business.

I think the OP's case is closer to Prince v Mapp; a guitarist that required hand surgery. He failed to claim the costs as a deduction on the basis that he admitted that he also liked to play guitar as a hobby so there was a duality of purpose and it failed the wholly and exclusively test.

 

[The Byre]

Here's the page with a few good links to cases of precedent that illuminate this issue -

BIM50620 - Athletes: Expenses - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk

 

[Cloud Accounting]

There's case law for stuntmen/women; Parson vs HMRC.

It involved a stuntman that required knee surgery. The NHS waiting time for the surgery was 12 months or more. He went private so that he could return to work and more quickly.

Knee surgery in this case wouldn't have been required for a less physically demanding job and / or normal day to day activities.

The court determined that the cost of going private was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his business.

I think the OP's case is closer to Prince v Mapp; a guitarist that required hand surgery. He failed to claim the costs as a deduction on the basis that he admitted that he also liked to play guitar as a hobby so there was a duality of purpose and it failed the wholly and exclusively test.

Back to my original point I think HMRC are ripe for further challenge on this. I'm sure it could be argued almost any medical treatment, particularly private, was with the aim of getting back to work quicker or at least getting back to full productivity quicker. The private benefit then becoming almost incidental.

Playing devils advocate, If HMRC are prepared to waive the wholly, exclusively & necessarily test in the case of a stuntman, why not for everyone else?

 

[STDFR33]

Bear in mind that Parsons is a FTT decision (which is probably a good job given some of the decisions you see at FTT).

 

[eteb3]

HS207 Non taxable payments or benefits for employees (2019)

For employees, though - not self-employed. Maybe there's an equivalent for sole trades?

£500 ain't gonna get you very far, either, sadly: that's a 10-session course of CBT, which is fine for the lower-end stuff, but not for things more serious.

 

[japancool]

I'm still curious as to find out the answer to another question though - if I'm away on a business trip abroad, and I have to have dialysis while there, can I claim the cost of dialysis against tax?

Since I can't go on the trip without it.

 

[Cloud Accounting]

I'm still curious as to find out the answer to another question though - if I'm away on a business trip abroad, and I have to have dialysis while there, can I claim the cost of dialysis against tax?

Since I can't go on the trip without it.

There are specific rules around medial treatment when travelling aboard on business but simplistically the answer to your question is yes. So there lies another potential loophole, albeit an extreme one, where you could have medial treatment abroad under the guise of business travel, so the cost becomes tax deductible.

 

[Bobbo]

There are specific rules around medial treatment when travelling aboard on business but simplistically the answer to your question is yes. So there lies another potential loophole, albeit an extreme one, where you could have medial treatment abroad under the guise of business travel, so the cost becomes tax deductible.

what you call an extreme potential loophole, someone else might call very blatant tax evasion.

for employees at least, the law says:

"No liability to income tax arises by virtue of Chapter 10 of Part 3 (taxable benefits: residual liability to charge) in respect of—
(a)providing an employee with medical treatment outside the United Kingdom where the need for it arises while the employee is outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of performing the duties of the employment"

 

[Cloud Accounting]

what you call an extreme potential loophole, someone else might call very blatant tax evasion.

for employees at least, the law says:

"No liability to income tax arises by virtue of Chapter 10 of Part 3 (taxable benefits: residual liability to charge) in respect of—
(a)providing an employee with medical treatment outside the United Kingdom where the need for it arises while the employee is outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of performing the duties of the employment"

I understand the tax rules very well, i'm merely following on from my previous points in highlighting that there are exceptions & that these are open to exploitation &/or legal challenge. I.e. why can the stuntman claim & I cant when arguably my physical health is equally important to the job I do. Its not but you get my point.