Doctors Certificates

[anon123]

If an employee incurs the cost of a doctor's certificate at the request of their employer is this cost incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purposes of the employment so that there is no tax on this item?

What about the cost of injections prior to travel where an employee is travelling overseas in the performance of their duties?

[mullet]

If it is for travel abroad with a purely business purpose, then logic suggests that it would be allowable.
Same logic for injections.

But EIM32870 appears to suggest otherwise.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM32870.htm

Is this a ray of hope? In very unusual circumstances it may be possible to argue that the personal benefit of the medical expenses was merely incidental to the business purpose, see EIM31664. In these cases a deduction can be given.

In this case it is more about prevention than treatment. Travel insurance specifically (and limited to) a business trip abroad would be allowable, so why not Dr and injections?

MSP (sitting on the fence)

[RAL]

If an employee incurs the cost of a doctor's certificate at the request of their employer is this cost incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purposes of the employment so that there is no tax on this item?

I say difficult to prove

What about the cost of injections prior to travel where an employee is travelling overseas in the performance of their duties?

I would say allowable.

(I will be sitting on the other fence, waiting for wrath of "incredulum")

[maths]

Maybe better for you to hide behind the fence, not sit on it.... then incredulum might not find you....

[RAL]

Maybe better for you to hide behind the fence, not sit on it.... then incredulum might not find you....

As you said, now its too late to hide.

[RAL]

Maybe better for you to hide behind the fence, not sit on it.... then incredulum might not find you....

As you said, now its too late to hide.

I thought I would give company to "msp"

[maths]

I struggle to see how either expense if incurred by the employee is deductible on his part.

The problem for most employees is satisfying the "necessary" leg of the test.

To be necessary requires that the duties of the employment require that it is incurred; the demand by an employer that the employee incurs the expense is by no means decisive.

The obtaining of a doctor's certificate cannot be said to be imposed by the duties of the employment ( neither it seems to me can injections).

No sitting on the fence here !!

[RAL]

No sitting on the fence here !!

Because no fence left.

[Incredulum]

But if the travel insurance is deductible, and the terms of the travel insurance require the injections then it appears to be W,E & N.

[mullet]

This is how I understand the tests:

Wholly and exclusively - relating to the employment alone, not dual purpose. Any private "benefit" of the expenditure is incidental.
Necessarily - can't do the job without it. Everyone doing that job would have to incur that expense. No element of private choice or discretion on the part of the employer.
In the performance of the duties - as part of the job. Not before, not after.

I think that the first two tests would be satisfied. But thinking about it, I must admit that the cost of the Doctor's certificate and the injections would probably fall down on "necessarily", as they would merely put the employee in the position to carry out the duties.

An alternative - are they simply travel expenses? The tests are less stringent, and Section 338(1) ITEPA might do the trick:

A deduction from earnings is allowed for travel expenses if— .
(a) the employee is obliged to incur and pay them as holder of the employment, and
(b) the expenses are attributable to the employee’s necessary attendance at any place in the performance of the duties of the employment.