½Û×ÓÊÓƵ

The legal expenses of protecting the office or the property attaching to the office are admissible as expenses, as in Mitchell v Child¹. In that case the duties of the office² were held to include the duty to protect that office, a contention unsuccessfully put forward, though on less convincing grounds, in Jardine v Gillespie³. The taxpayer in Mitchell v Child, who was the incumbent of a living, claimed the deduction of the costs of opposing in Parliament a Bill in connection with the extension of an aerodrome. Under the Bill, the taxpayer's rectory and grounds would have been acquired, subject to compensation, but no offer was made to find suitable alternative accommodation within the parish. The rector's opposition upon the grounds that he was legally bound to reside in the parish was successful, and resulted in a new section being inserted in the Bill giving full protection to his interests. The rector's action was taken with the full knowledge of the Ecclesiastical