Reimbursement of actual travel costs is not taxable emolument, and duty-related travel may be deductible under the office-expenses rule.

A reimbursement of actual travel expenditure incurred in carrying out office duties was not an emolument chargeable under Schedule E because it was a repayment of disbursements, not a reward or personal profit. Travel between Fishguard and Haverfordwest was also deductible under rule 7 of Schedule 9 where, on the facts, the journey formed part of emergency hospital duties and was necessarily incurred in the performance of the office. The decision turns on the absence of any profit element in the reimbursement and on the journey being integral to the duties rather than merely ordinary commuting.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether travelling allowances reimbursing actual travel expenditure were part of the appellant's emoluments chargeable under Schedule E. (ii) Whether the unreimbursed travelling expenses incurred in travelling between Fishguard and Haverfordwest were deductible under rule 7 of Schedule 9.

Issue (i): Whether travelling allowances reimbursing actual travel expenditure were part of the appellant's emoluments chargeable under Schedule E.

Analysis: The governing question was whether a sum paid merely to reimburse expenditure incurred in carrying out the duties of the office could properly be treated as a profit, gain, perquisite, or other emolument from the employment. The reimbursement did not represent a reward for services, nor did it confer a personal profit element; it was paid to meet actual disbursements connected with the hospital duties.

Conclusion: The travelling reimbursements were not emoluments and were not chargeable as part of the appellant's taxable emoluments.

Issue (ii): Whether the unreimbursed travelling expenses incurred in travelling between Fishguard and Haverfordwest were deductible under rule 7 of Schedule 9.

Analysis: Rule 7 permits deduction only of expenses necessarily incurred and defrayed in the performance of the duties of the office. The decisive question was whether the appellant, in the circumstances of his emergency hospital appointment, had two real places of work so that the journey was made on the performance of the hospital duties rather than merely to reach the place of work. On the facts found, the appellant's responsibilities began when he was contacted, he gave immediate instructions by telephone, and the journey to the hospital was an integral part of the emergency duty. The objective limitation in the rule did not require every holder of the office to incur identical expenses in all cases.

Conclusion: The travelling expenses were necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of the office and were deductible under rule 7.

Final Conclusion: The assessment could not stand insofar as it treated the reimbursement of travel expenses as taxable emoluments and denied deduction of the related travelling expenditure; the appellant succeeded on the substance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A reimbursement of actual expenditure incurred in performing the duties of an office is not an emolument unless it contains a personal profit element, and travel between two real places of work undertaken as part of emergency duties may be an expense necessarily incurred in the performance of those duties for the purposes of the deduction rule.

---