This case looks at training costs and whether they are wholly, exclusively and necessary.
This Court of Appeal decision looked at the training costs of a course as under ITEPA 2003 S336. Dr Banerjee was a specialist registrar in dermatology and paid for and attended a number of training courses. Dr Banerjee was employed under a training contract and an intrinsic part of that contract was to attend these courses. The training clause in her contract stated:
"Employment is dependent on your continuing to hold a National Training Number…"
Dr Banerjee was also required to attend meetings, courses and conferences for her employer. She was also employed to undergo both practical and theoretical exercises. Dr Banerjee was employed under successive contracts over five years, this was deemed unimportant to the decision.
It was shown that the cost of the courses where wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for her to perform her duties as a result of her contractual obligation. In addition the decision focused on whether the expense was incurred because of her duties and not just as an imposition by her employer. It was shown that the personal benefit of these courses was incidental and did not give rise to a duel benefit of the courses.
HMRC has stated that this is unlike CPE courses which do give rise to a duel benefit, as detailed in its interpretation 'EIM32530 - Other expenses: education and training: education costs: case law', which can be accessed using the 'Related Links'.