Travel between an employee’s home and a permanent
workplace is “ordinary commuting” and the expenses of
such journeys do not qualify for relief under Section 338 ITEPA
2003, see
EIM32150 onwards. That rule applies even
when the employee does some of their work at home, and even if you
accept that they are entitled to relief under Section 336 for the
additional expenses of working at home, see
EIM32760.
In Kirkwood v Evans (74TC481, see
EIM32374) Mr Evans worked at home for
four days a week under a voluntary homeworking scheme. The court
confirmed that even though Mr Evans’s home was a
“workplace” his journey to his employer’s
premises on one day a week was nevertheless “ordinary
commuting” and so did not qualify for relief under Section
338.
Note though that if the employee’s home is accepted to
be a workplace for tax purposes the employee may possibly be
entitled to relief under Section 337 ITEPA 2003 for the expenses of
travelling from home to a permanent workplace in respect of the
same employment. Such journeys may count as travelling “in
the performance of the duties” of the employment, see
EIM32351 onwards. However, if an
employee's home is a workplace for only part of their working time
a deduction can be permitted for the cost of travel between home
and a permanent workplace only during those times that the
employee's home is a workplace. This is illustrated by example
EIM32173.
Employees who work at home are of course entitled to a
deduction under Section 338 for the expenses of travelling to a
temporary workplace in the same way as any other employee.
An employee is not entitled to a deduction for the cost of
travel between home and any places attended for reasons other than
work, for example a holiday cottage. Such travel is private travel,
see
EIM32180.
