Rendell v Went [1964] 1 WLR 650

Facts

  • The taxpayer, Mr. Rendell, managed a potato crisp factory and worked during evenings and weekends.
  • He received free meals in the factory canteen, which was provided due to his irregular work hours and the factory’s remote location.
  • The Inland Revenue claimed these meals should be taxed as part of his pay.
  • Mr. Rendell argued that the meals were necessary for him to perform his duties, given the location and timing of his work.
  • The dispute centred on whether the meals addressed the employer’s operational needs or conferred a personal benefit on the employee.

Issues

  1. Whether the free meals provided to Mr. Rendell constituted a taxable benefit as part of his remuneration.
  2. Whether the meals were primarily provided to meet the employer’s requirements or to benefit the employee personally.
  3. What legal test governs the distinction between taxable benefits and non-taxable, job-related provisions.

Decision

  • The High Court found in favour of Mr. Rendell and determined that the meals were not taxable as income.
  • Justice Plowman ruled that the provision of meals primarily facilitated the employer's business by enabling effective work during irregular hours in a remote factory.
  • The court emphasized the difficulty of obtaining food elsewhere due to the work schedule and location, making the provision necessary for the performance of the role.
  • The decision highlighted the need to consider specific job conditions and the real reason for the employer providing the benefit.

Legal Principles

  • Rendell v Went established the “necessity test”: a benefit is not taxable if it is essential for the employee’s performance of job duties, assessed in light of the actual work context.
  • The distinction between taxable benefits and job-related necessities relies on discerning the primary purpose of the benefit—whether it is furnished to meet business needs or as part of the employee’s pay.
  • The case highlights the relevance of contextual factors such as employment terms, industry practice, and the reasons for providing the benefit.
  • Later cases, including Tennant v Smith [1892] AC 150 and Heaton v Bell [1970] AC 728, have refined the application of these principles and clarified the boundaries of benefit taxation.

Conclusion

Rendell v Went remains a key authority on the tax treatment of employee benefits. Its “necessity test” forms a central guideline for distinguishing taxable income from non-taxable provisions required for job performance, with subsequent cases further elaborating this framework for employers and employees.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal