## Facts

- Mr. Quinn, a self-employed carpenter, included as a deduction in his income-tax return a fixed sum representing the cost of his midday meal taken during each working day.
- The sum was calculated on the basis of modest lunches bought near the building sites where he was engaged.
- He contended that, because he carried out physically demanding tasks, the meals were indispensable to sustain the effort required by his trade and therefore should be treated in the same way as expenditure on tools or materials.
- The Inspector of Taxes disallowed the claim on the ground that food provides a personal benefit that is part of ordinary living, not an expense incurred solely for the purposes of trade.
- The matter proceeded to the General Commissioners, who upheld the assessment. Mr. Quinn appealed to the High Court by way of case stated.

## Issues

1. Whether the cost of ordinary weekday lunches, consumed while carrying on self-employment, is an allowable deduction under the statutory phrase “expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade.”
2. Whether a physiological necessity (food) can ever be regarded as having a separate and exclusive business character when the taxpayer works long hours or performs arduous labour.
3. Whether it is relevant that the taxpayer would not have incurred the particular expenditure but for the demands of his trade.

## Decision

- The High Court (Walton J) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment.
- Walton J held that, although Mr. Quinn’s need for sustenance was intensified by the nature of his work, nourishment remains a universal personal requirement. The expenditure therefore possesses a dual character: partly to enable the individual to continue living, partly (in the taxpayer’s submission) to enable him to earn profits.
- Applying the authority of earlier cases, the judge stated that where an expense has both private and business elements, it is not deductible unless the business element can be severed. The cost of an ordinary meal cannot be dissected in that manner.
- The court distinguished between:
  - meals consumed for convenience or ordinary refreshment (non-deductible), and
  - meals taken solely in the course of specific business activities, for example, entertaining a client or travelling overnight for work (potentially deductible because the private element may be regarded as incidental).
- Since Mr. Quinn’s lunches were routine and not occasioned by travel or representation, they failed the statutory “wholly and exclusively” test.

## Legal Principles

- The Income Tax legislation requires that deductible expenditure be incurred “wholly and exclusively” for the purposes of the profession or trade. This is a stringent test; an apportionment is permitted only where the business and private components are objectively separable.
- Food and drink purchased to satisfy ordinary hunger are, in general, personal or living expenses. Such expenses do not become business outgoings merely because work is strenuous or carried out away from home.
- Exceptions may arise where the meal expenditure is ancillary to a qualifying activity—such as subsistence incurred on an overnight business trip mandated by the trade, or reasonable costs of entertaining clients for the purpose of generating income—provided there is clear evidence of a direct connection to the profit-earning process.
- The judgment confirms earlier case law that physiological or domestic needs ordinarily fall on the taxpayer personally and cannot be shifted to the Revenue.

## Conclusion

Caillebotte v Quinn [1975] STC 265 clarifies that the everyday cost of lunch consumed while performing one’s trade is not deductible, even where the work is physically demanding. Only meal costs that arise directly from and exclusively for a specific business activity, and that can be isolated from any private benefit, satisfy the statutory “wholly and exclusively” requirement for allowable deductions.