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
- 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.
- Whether an expense with both personal and work-related elements can be deducted if the principal purpose is commuting.
- 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.
