POOK (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) Vs. OWEN.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RATIO Decidendi: "Authorities shall make deduction as per relevant provisions of law." LORD , M.R. - Dr. Owen is a medical practitioner in Fishguard. He had a part -time appointment at the hospital at Haverfordwest. That is 15 miles away from Fishguard. His appointment is an obstetrician and anaesthetist. Under his appointment he is on stand -by duty for emergencies : as an obstetrician one weekend a month : as an anaesthetist one weekend a month, and also on Monday and Friday nights. He has got to be accessible by telephone during that time. All his part -time work is concerned with emergency cases at the hospital at Haverfordwest. As soon as he gets a telephone call telling him of an emergency, he gives instructions over the telephone to the hospital staff. For instance, as an obstetrician, he may tell the to prepare the patient for an operation, or to do what is necessary for the woman. Or, as an anaesthetist, he may have to give instructions relating to the pre -anaesthetic treatment. After giving instructions her usually sets off immediately to the hospital by car. Sometimes he advises treatment by telephone and them awaits a further report. Sometimes a telephone call is received while he is out in his roughed and he had to deal with the emergency accordingly. His responsibility for the patient begins as soon as the receives the telephone call.

(2.) NOW , here is the point. He gets travelling expenses allowed to him at a fixed rate per mile for journeys between Fishguard and the hospital at Haverfordwest. The question which have been raised in this court are two -fold. First : do the money paid to him for travelling expenses count as part of his emoluments which he has to bring into account to tax ? Second : if they do count as emoluments, is he allowed to deduct on the other side the like amount (or a greater amount) by reason of the expenses he actually incur in getting to the hospital ?

(3.) THE commissioner decided that, although the money are to be brought into account, nevertheless they are cancelled out immediately because they are expenses which he has necessarily incurred in carrying out the duties of his employment. The commissioner found that the duties of the doctor commenced at the moment he was first contacted by the hospital authorities, and thereafter his travelling expenses to and from the hospital, or to and from an emergency, were wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred or expended it the duties of that office. So they decided that he was entitled to have his assessments reduced by reason of his travelling expanses. Stamp J. reversed that decision. He though that the case was indistinguishable from the case of the Recorder of Portsmouth, Ricketts v/s. Colquhoun. He had that the doctor was not entitled to have the expenses allowed. Now there is an appeal to this court.