188体育

Section 337 ITEPA 2003

The fact that an employee is on stand-by, or may be called out to work as and when needed, does not in itself affect the treatment of his or her travelling expenses.

In Pook v Owen (45TC571) Lord Wilberforce commented at page 595:

鈥淭he mere fact of being on stand-by duty is not enough鈥濃��.[to qualify for a deduction]鈥︹�淣or, in my opinion, is the mere fact sufficient that he might be called upon, or might volunteer, to give some professional advice on the telephone before setting out. There are persons who hold positions of importance, who carry their responsibility with them wherever they are: they too may be called to their offices after working hours鈥�..But this does not mean that they have more than one working place: cf. Newsom v Robertson (33TC452). What is required is proof to the satisfaction of the fact-finding Commissioners that the taxpayer, in a real sense, in respect of the office or employment in question, had two places of work, and that the expenses were incurred in travelling from one to the other in the performance of his duties鈥�.

The same principle applies to travel for necessary attendance, see EIM32250.