Mallalieu v Drummond
The cost of ordinary clothes worn by a barrister in court was not deductible, because the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of her profession.
Facts
Miss Mallalieu, a barrister, was required by the rules of court dress to wear dark clothing in court. She bought black dresses, suits and other clothes which she wore only in court and when travelling to and from court, and would not otherwise have bought. She claimed to deduct the cost of buying, replacing and cleaning the clothes in computing the profits of her profession, as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of her profession.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that the expenditure was not deductible. Lord Brightman said that the question was the object of the taxpayer in making the expenditure, which required an inquiry into her state of mind, but that the object was not limited to her conscious motive. Miss Mallalieu needed clothes to wear for warmth and decency, and the clothes she wore in court served that purpose as well as the purpose of complying with the rules of court dress, so the expenditure had a dual purpose and was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of her profession. Lord Elwyn-Jones dissented. The case is the leading authority on the duality of purpose rule.
Related cases on income and corporation tax: employment, trading and residence
- Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14
- Hochstrasser v Mayes [1960] AC 376
- Jones v Garnett [2007] UKHL 35
- Marks & Spencer plc v Halsey (2005) Case C-446/03
- Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
- R (Gaines-Cooper) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2011] UKSC 47
- RFC 2012 plc v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] UKSC 45
- Shilton v Wilmshurst [1991] 1 AC 684
Studying tax law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
