We are sharing this update from ACCA, our professional body, for the interest of clients and contacts. The content is (c) ACCA
Why taxpayers must pass an exceptionally high evidential threshold to mount such a claim
The tax treatment of medical expenditure has long been governed by a straightforward principle: costs incurred to ensure, maintain or restore good health are generally not deductible for tax purposes. Although illness or injury may arise directly from a person’s work and treatment may be essential to enable them to continue earning an income, the courts have consistently distinguished between expenditure incurred for business purposes and expenditure incurred for the personal benefit of the taxpayer – the principle of duality of purpose as established in the case of Mallalieu v Drummond [1983] 57 TC 330.
At the heart of this distinction lies the requirement that expenditure must be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of a trade, profession or vocation. Medical expenses will often fail this test because they serve not only the taxpayer’s business interests but also their personal wellbeing. The courts have repeatedly held that this duality of purpose prevents relief from being available, even where there is a close connection between the expenditure and the taxpayer’s ability to work.
The leading authority on the treatment of medical expenses is the case of Norman v Golder [1944] 26 TC 293. Mr Norman worked as a shorthand writer in the courts and suffered a serious illness which he claimed was caused by the unfavourable conditions in which he was required to work. As a result of his illness, he incurred substantial medical expenses, including doctors’ fees, and sought to deduct these costs from his taxable earnings.
Mr Norman argued that the expenditure had been incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with his professional work and therefore should not be regarded as domestic expenditure. In the alternative, he advanced the novel argument that the expenses should be treated as an allowance for wear and tear. Since his body had effectively been damaged by the demands of his employment, he contended that the cost of restoring it should qualify in the same way as repairs to business assets.
The court rejected these arguments. It held that the human body cannot be regarded as plant or machinery for tax purposes and therefore cannot attract relief on a wear and tear basis. More fundamentally, it was stated that medical expenses are not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of a trade, profession, employment or vocation. Although recovery from illness may be necessary in order to continue working and earning income, such expenditure also confers a personal benefit on the taxpayer as a living individual.
The court further noted that the same reasoning applies to everyday living costs such as food and clothing. While these items are necessary to enable a person to work, they remain inherently personal in nature and are not transformed into business expenditure. Medical costs similarly serve a dual purpose: they support the taxpayer’s ability to earn income but also improve health and overall quality of life. As a result of this duality of purpose, relief is not available.
Surgery to restore function after injury
The issue arose again in Prince v Mapp [1969] 46 TC 169. Mr Prince’s principal occupation was that of a draughtsman, but he also earned income as a professional guitarist. Importantly, he also played the guitar as a hobby.
While sharpening a pencil at work, Mr Prince injured the little finger of his left hand. The injury failed to heal properly, leaving the top joint useless. Surgery was necessary if he wished to continue playing the guitar.
Mr Prince claimed that the cost of the operation should be deductible because it enabled him to continue his professional activities as a musician. However, the Special Commissioners found that the operation had not been undertaken solely for professional purposes. It would also allow him to continue enjoying his hobby.
The High Court upheld the Commissioners’ decision. It accepted that it was possible to imagine circumstances in which medical expenditure might satisfy the wholly and exclusively test. For example, a minor injury might be insignificant in everyday life but crucial to a particular profession. In such a situation, expenditure on treatment might conceivably be incurred solely for business purposes.
However, that was not the case here. The evidence showed that Mr Prince wished to continue playing the guitar in all the ways he had previously done, both professionally and recreationally. The operation therefore served a dual purpose. It enabled him to earn professional income while also allowing him to pursue a personal hobby. That duality of purpose was fatal to the claim.
The significance of Prince v Mapp lies in the fact that the court did not rule out the possibility of deductible medical expenditure altogether. Instead, it recognised that relief might be available in exceptional circumstances where a taxpayer can demonstrate that treatment was undertaken exclusively for professional reasons. The difficulty is that, in practice, such cases are likely to be rare.
Nursing home costs and business continuity
The courts adopted a similar approach in Murgatroyd v Evans-Jackson [1967] 43 TC 581. Mr Evans-Jackson was a trademark agent who operated his professional practice from offices in both London and Dublin. Following an accident, he suffered a ruptured spinal disc and required medical treatment.
Although a place was available in an NHS hospital, he considered that treatment there would make it impossible to continue operating his practice because of restrictions on telephone access and client meetings. He therefore entered a private nursing home where he could receive treatment while continuing to work.
During his five-week stay, Mr Evans-Jackson conducted conferences with clients, met regularly with members of staff, dealt with correspondence, and issued instructions regarding the management of his business. Believing that part of the nursing home expenditure related to the conduct of his profession, he claimed a deduction for 60% of the costs.
The claim failed: while the nursing home provided facilities that enabled him to continue working, it also provided treatment for his injury. The expenditure therefore contained an unavoidable personal element.
The judge went further and stated that the primary reason for entering the nursing home was to receive medical treatment. While the facilities allowed Mr Evans-Jackson to continue managing his business, the treatment also benefited him personally by restoring his health. Such benefits accrue not only to the taxpayer as a professional but also to the taxpayer as a living human being.
The case illustrates that merely combining medical treatment with business activities does not transform personal expenditure into deductible business expenditure.
Cosmetic surgery and professional appearance
The question of cosmetic surgery presents a particularly interesting challenge because, for some professions, appearance is an important commercial asset. Actors, models, television personalities, influencers and content creators may all argue that their appearance has a direct impact on their earning potential.
This issue has become increasingly relevant in the modern digital economy. A large part of an influencer’s or content creator’s popularity may be determined by their appearance and the image they project to their audience. While this connection may be most obvious in relation to adult content creators, it also applies more broadly to lifestyle influencers, beauty creators, fitness personalities, and others whose business model depends on selling a lifestyle or image that followers aspire to emulate.
Despite these commercial realities, the established tax principles continue to apply. Where a performer claims a deduction for the cost of cosmetic surgery to correct a perceived inadequacy in their appearance, it is necessary to examine whether one of the purposes of the expenditure was to satisfy a personal wish to improve or alter that appearance. If such a private motive exists, no deduction will be available because the expenditure will possess the duality of purpose identified in the case law.
HMRC accepts that some performers may nevertheless be able to demonstrate that cosmetic surgery has been undertaken solely for professional reasons. In such circumstances, the expenditure may be deductible.
The example provided by HMRC in its Business Income Manual 50160 concerns a radio performer with many years of experience who begins undertaking television work. The performer is advised that irregular teeth are limiting opportunities to appear on television and consequently elects to undergo cosmetic dentistry. It is established as a matter of fact that the performer had previously been content with their appearance and that obtaining television work was the sole purpose of the treatment. In those circumstances, HMRC accepts that the cost of the cosmetic dentistry is allowable.
This example highlights the exceptionally high evidential threshold that taxpayers must satisfy. It is not sufficient to show that improved appearance may lead to increased earnings or commercial opportunities. The taxpayer must demonstrate that the expenditure was incurred exclusively for professional reasons and not, even in part, to satisfy a personal desire to improve their appearance.
For influencers and content creators, this distinction is particularly important. Although their appearance may form an integral part of their business, it will often be difficult to establish that cosmetic procedures provide no personal benefit whatsoever.
Conclusion
Whether the expenditure takes the form of doctors’ fees, surgery to restore physical function, cosmetic procedures, or nursing home costs, the courts have repeatedly emphasised that expenditure incurred to maintain or restore health will normally benefit the taxpayer personally as well as professionally. The concept of duality of purpose lies at the centre of every case.
Even where treatment is essential to enable a taxpayer to continue working, earning income, or carrying on a profession, relief will generally be denied because the expenditure also serves the personal interests of the individual. Only in exceptional cases, where a taxpayer can demonstrate that medical expenditure was incurred exclusively for professional purposes and carried no significant private benefit, will a deduction be available.
The result is that medical expenditure remains one of the clearest examples of the distinction between personal and business costs in tax law. Health may be essential to earning a living, but the courts have consistently refused to treat the human body as a business asset, ensuring that the costs of maintaining or restoring it remain, in most cases, outside the scope of allowable deductions.