drivers license

Most unlikely - unless it can pass the test of "...wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the employment., in accordance with section 336 ITEPA 2003.

It is often the "necessarily" part that precludes the deduction - as this is an objective rather than a subjective test.

We call it driving licence in UK :-) Why are you so concerned about the cost of licence which, last time I looked at it, was 38. Or do you mean the cost of passing the test, which can run into 100's? Your claim will almost certainly fail, as it can be argued that even if your wife has to drive for work, it can be performed by someone else who already has a licence and therefore will not incur the cost of getting one. It's similar to trying to claim the cost of commuting. You get a job working in a town 100 miles away. You have to travel 1000 miles a week. But you cannot claim the cost because the job can be performed by someone else who doesn't live so far away. The crux is the word 'necessarily' in the performance of your duty. It's 'necessarily' for the employment, not 'necessarily' for you as an employee. The test is, to quote my former tax inspector, is it 'necessary' for everyone in the same employment as you?

Alec

I would have though that it would never get this far as it fails the 'wholly' test by a mile, unless the OP can find some way that his wife magically 'forgets' how to drive each time she leaves the office when not performing her company secretary duties.

tim

She doesn't need to forget. It would be sufficient to show (credibly, of course, which is difficult) that she hates driving so fiercely that she would never under any circumstances do it unless forced to by her husband commanding her to do so for the company. And of course he wouldn't dare command her to drive down to Tesco's for the week's shopping.

Damned right. I was going to remark upon this myself, but sadly some folk seem to pooh pooh such pedantry.

Ah, from the business point of view it can be more cost effective to have the wife drive, since in the long run she'll be cheaper than a "proper" employee.

I believe the claim can succeed. It will certainly succeed if hidden well enough under something obscure like "staff training costs". The test should not be whether a potential private benefit accrues to her as a result of the company forking out for the driving lessons, but whether she would have considered forking out for them herself.

IIRC this was the argument that the barrister (in this case as plaintif) made about her work clothes. That they we so horrendous she could never wear them in the 'outside world' and that as such they were "necessary ..... for her job" and thus tax-deductible.

She lost. Whether she would wear them was irrelevent, the fact that she could wear them was enough for the claim to fail.

tim

No, it wasn't. AIUI the case turned on the principle of duality of purpose, which was established not because the clothes could also be worn outwith work, but because even while at work they served not just the work purpose of making her look horrendous, but also the private purpose of keeping her warm and her bits covered up. She would have had to have worn *some* clothes at work anyway, and ordinarily she would have been expected to provide them out of her private wardrobe. Had the expense of the "horrendous" clothes been allowed, she would as a result have enjoyed the wholly private benefit of reduced wear and tear on her own "normal" clothes which she would otherwise have been wearing to work.

Indeed it did, and went all the way to the House of Lords (Mallalieu v. Drummond). I believe she is now a QC.

Also, that was a Schedule D case which does not require the "necessarily" test.