Kirkwood v Evans [2002] EWHC 30

Facts

• Mr. Kirkwood, a music teacher, sought to deduct travel expenses incurred for trips between his home (where some teaching occurred) and several schools where he also worked.
• The Inland Revenue denied the deduction claims, asserting that Kirkwood’s home constituted his principal workplace; thus, journeys to other schools were deemed commuting, not deductible as work expenses.
• The Special Commissioners initially permitted some claims, recognizing partial work purposes in certain journeys.
• This decision was reversed by the High Court, which examined the nature and purpose of the travel and the location of Kirkwood’s main workplace.

Issues

1. Whether travel expenses incurred by an employee between home (where some work duties are performed) and other work locations are deductible for income tax purposes.
2. Whether an expense with both personal and work-related elements can be deducted if the principal purpose is commuting.
3. How to determine the primary workplace and the dominant motive for travel in the context of mixed-purpose journeys.

Decision

• The High Court, per Justice Lightman, held that Kirkwood’s home was his primary workplace due to the substantive amount of work performed there.
• Travel between the home and schools was classified as commuting from a principal workplace, which is not deductible.
• The court emphasized that the main purpose or motive of each journey determines deductibility; the presence of incidental work activities (such as carrying teaching materials) did not suffice to convert commuting into work travel.
• The court reversed the Special Commissioners’ decision, disallowing the expense claims.

Legal Principles

• Only travel expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for work purposes are deductible; dual purpose trips with a main personal (commuting) motive are not.
• Identifying the principal workplace depends on factors such as time spent and the nature of duties performed at each location.
• Deductions are allowed for travel between multiple work sites (other than from or to the principal workplace), provided the primary purpose is business-related.
• Merely performing minor work-related acts during a commute does not render the journey deductible.
• The approach echoes Mallalieu v Drummond [1983] 2 AC 861, applying the main purpose test to distinguish between personal and business expenditure.

Conclusion

Kirkwood v Evans [2002] EWHC 30 confirms that for travel expenses to be deductible, the main motive must be work-related; routine commuting from a principal workplace remains non-deductible, even if minor professional tasks are performed en route. The decision offers structured guidance for documenting expense claims and emphasizes the main purpose test’s significance in assessing mixed-purpose journeys for tax purposes.