An objective approach is normally taken to mean one that is
unaffected by the personal views of the person making the decision
or judgement. In contrast, a subjective decision would vary
according to the particular preferences of the person making the
judgement.
In Robinson v Scott Bader [1981] 54TC757 (see
BIM38250) Walton J tells us, at page
767:
It follows from all this that the test [in ICTA88/S74 (1)(a)] is subjective, and not an objective one - i.e., the relevant question is ‘What was the object of the person making the disbursement in making it?’, not, ‘What was the effect of the disbursement when made?’…
So Walton J is saying that you are concerned with the purpose of the expenditure rather than the result. This is very much in contrast to capital/revenue issues - see BIM35010. This is made very clear in Bentleys Stokes & Lowless v Beeson [1952] 33TC491 (see BIM37400). The introduction of terms like ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ does not help decide the real issue.
