EIM61018 Tax Relief for Doctors Explained

EIM 61018 applies to all qualified doctors and junior doctors.

What is EIM61018 for?

EIM 61018 concerns tax relief for training expenses borne by doctors. It states that CPD is NOT something that doctors and trainee doctors can claim.

Who doesn’t it apply to?

The Courts and HMRC Commissioners have usually maintained that any training activities done by trainee doctors do not meet the criteria of section 336 because they are not done “in the performance of” their employment duties.

It has been determined that, under their employment contract with whichever NHS Trust they work for, the duties of trainee doctors are limited to the clinical work they carry out. This does not include an intrinsic element of training.

Trainee doctors could lose their job or their professional qualification if they do not attend mandatory training courses, but this has no impact on the judgement of HMRC commissioners and the Courts.

The evidence from HMRC

There are four cases in which the courts and HMRC Commissioners have reinforced this viewpoint and refused tax relief for training expenses.

  1. Decadt V CRC

A specialist registrar, who had to sit exams as part of his employment terms, was not allowed to claim tax relief on their cost.

  1. Snowdon V Charnock

A specialist registrar was required to undertake a course of psychotherapy and was not allowed to claim tax relief on the cost.

  1. Parikh V Sleeman

A hospital doctor on study leave was not allowed to claim tax relief on the cost of courses they attended.

  1. Consultant Psychiatrist V CIR

A consultant psychiatrist working in the NHS was not allowed to claim tax relief on the cost of CPD which was essential to maintaining the validation of their professional qualification.

 

There is also a Court of Appeal judgement which found in favour of a specialist registrar who wanted to claim tax relief for training costs. The Court found that, because they were on a training contract with training ‘written in’ to their employment duties, this could be allowed. This was the case of Revenue and Customs Commissioners V Dr Piu Banerjee (2010 EWCA Civ.843).

 

If you enjoyed this article please share it with your friends:







Back to Top
Back to Top