000			01540cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS38865
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u12890
041			_aeng
245			_aMacKinlay v Arthur Young McLelland Moores and Co
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aNLJ Law Reports _v138(6342) 5 February 1988, 30-31(2)
520			_aCA 29 January 1988. Appeal by firm of chartered accountants (A) from decision in favour of the Crown (M), holding that domestic removal expenses of two partners, required to change their place of work, were not tax deductible. The expenses were reimbursed to the partners by A. When the Revenue refused the claim A appealed to the commissioners (C), who held that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively expended for the purposes of A`s profession and made the deduction. M appealed and the judge held the expenses were not deductible. On appeal to CA the question at issue was whether the facts entitled C to conclude that this expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of A`s profession. M submitted that the expenses ... in moving house could never be "wholly and exclusively" for business purposes because the very nature of the expenditure, as serving in part to meet a human need of the spender, would oblige C to hold that it was incurred for private purposes. The
650			_aINCOME AND CORPORATION TAXES ACT 1970 S130
650			_aMALLALIEU V DRUMMOND
690			_aTAXATION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c8274 _d8274