<strong>Reasonable</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Expense</strong>s: Discussion paper3. ACCOUNTING AND ECONOMIC CONCEPTS OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE3.1. OVERVIEW<strong>The</strong> foregoing section has considered the development <strong>of</strong> judicialprecedent on the deductibility <strong>of</strong> expenses under the ‘wholly andexclusively’ rule. Concepts <strong>of</strong> accounting and economic income haveinfluenced the approaches <strong>of</strong> the courts and tax policymakers indetermining the bounds <strong>of</strong> the ‘wholly and exclusively’ deductibility rule.Accounting concepts and economic theories provide significant insightsinto the concept <strong>of</strong> taxable income and the role <strong>of</strong> the wholly andexclusively deductibility rule in determining the tax base for incometaxation.3.2. ACCOUNTING INCOME AND THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF EXPENSESAccounting rules and concepts have traditionally played a significant rolein this area <strong>of</strong> UK tax law, as indicated by Jenkins, LJ’s statement inMorgan (Inspector <strong>of</strong> Taxes) v Tate & Lyle Ltd to the effect that: “… it haslong been settled that the effect <strong>of</strong> these provisions as to deductions isthat the balance <strong>of</strong> the pr<strong>of</strong>its and gains <strong>of</strong> a trade must be ascertained inaccordance with the ordinary principles <strong>of</strong> commercial trading, bydeducting from them the gross receipts <strong>of</strong> all expenditure properlydeductible from them on those principles, save in so far as any amount sodeducted falls within any <strong>of</strong> the statutory prohibitions contained in therelevant rules, in which case it must be added back for the purpose <strong>of</strong>arriving at the balance <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>its and gains accessible to tax.” 166 As such,in matters <strong>of</strong> the ascertainment <strong>of</strong> taxable pr<strong>of</strong>its, recourse wouldnormally be had to the principles <strong>of</strong> commercial accountancy. This hasbeen applied in UK case law, as illustrated in the pre-Finance Act 1998166[1953] 2 All ER 162 at 175; [1953] Ch. 601 at 627, CA.Bode OyetundePage 30 <strong>of</strong> 63PhD CandidateCentre for Commercial Law StudiesQueen Mary & Westfield College
<strong>Reasonable</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Expense</strong>s: Discussion paperdecisions <strong>of</strong> Odeon Associated <strong>The</strong>atres Ltd v Jones 167Jones. 168and Gallagher vHowever, it has been suggested that the more modern (post-Finance Act1998) view considers the characterisation <strong>of</strong> expenses into deductibleand non-deductible categories to be more a matter <strong>of</strong> law and less amatter <strong>of</strong> commercial accountancy, reducing the importance <strong>of</strong> accountingprinciples from being conclusive to being merely <strong>of</strong> evidentiaryinfluence. 169 Accounting theories <strong>of</strong> income based on net incomeapproaches 170 <strong>of</strong>ten make distinctions between income and capital,nominal and real income flows and ex ante and ex post income. 171 Othertheoretical issues in accounting involve source preservation, 172 periodicmeasurement, the ‘realisation’ concept and the use <strong>of</strong> the historic costbasis. In practice, these principles and concepts have been adopted withvarying degrees <strong>of</strong> success in international and UK generally acceptedaccounting practice, and applied in specific accounting standards issuedby the relevant accounting boards. 173 Controversies abound, however, asto the appropriate application <strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> these accounting concepts toparticular transactions and industries, 174 and, indeed, by the courts in167168169170171172173174By Salmon J. [1972] 1 All ER 681 at 689. See also Lord Haldane in SunInsurance Office Ltd v Clark [1912] AC 443, at 455 and Lord Clyde inLothian Chemical Co Ltd v Rogers (1926) 11 TC 508, at 520.By Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. [1993] STC 537 at 555, 556.John Tiley, Revenue Law, op cit, p. 418.See Irving Fisher, (1906) <strong>The</strong> Nature <strong>of</strong> Capital and Income (New York: andLindhahl, Erick (1933) <strong>The</strong> Concept <strong>of</strong> Income, in Economic Essays in Honor<strong>of</strong> Gustav Cassel, (London).See generally Hansen, Palle (1962) <strong>The</strong> Accounting Concept <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>it(Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company).J.R. Hicks, (1946) Value and Capital – An Inquiry into Some FundamentalPrinciples <strong>of</strong> Economic <strong>The</strong>ory, (London: Oxford University Press).See generally John Tiley, Revenue Law, op cit, §21 et seq, particularly pp.395 – 399.For instance there is some controversy as regards the use <strong>of</strong> ‘fair values’ ininternational and UK accounting standards, particularly as regards themeasurement <strong>of</strong> insurance contracts and other financial instruments: seeMacve, Richard and Joanne Horton, Fair Value for Financial Instruments:How Erasing <strong>The</strong>ory is Leading to Unworkable Global Accounting Standardsfor Performance Reporting, Australian Accounting Review 11, No.2 (2000),pp. 26 – 39.Bode OyetundePage 31 <strong>of</strong> 63PhD CandidateCentre for Commercial Law StudiesQueen Mary & Westfield College