| 6/1/2009 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case no. 38/55 |
Decided: 23 January, 1956 |
   |
|
No deduction allowed in respect of travelling and entertaining expenses as these were not wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of the income - article 10(1) and 11(a), now 14(1) and 26(a), Income Tax Act
|
The Board observed that where a deduction is not specifically allowed by article 10(1), one has to determine whether it falls under the general principle enunciated by the same article, that is, whether the expense was wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of the income.
The words "wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of the income" mean that it is not enough that such expenses have served for the production of the income. The law sets down that these are to have been "wholly and exclusively" incurred. There has to be an element of "necessity", which in the present case seemed lacking.
The nature of the expenses in question was not inherent to the office occupied by appellant, but varied according to the specific circumstances of the incumbent and, therefore, relative not necessary.
Citing several U.K. tax cases, the Board held that the expenses claimed by appellant were not incurred "in the actual performance of his duties", but expenses defrayed out of his salary but in no way essential to be incurred that he may earn the said salary.
Besides, article 11(a) excludes from deduction those expenses which are of a private or domestic nature. Appellant's expenses may not have been purely private but this did not make them an allowable deduction.
|
|
|
|
|