What all things will help clients in rescuing various complicated matters in tax depreciation schedule?

On 5 July an AO decided that, as the previous diagnosis had been made seven and a half years earlier, further medical opinion should be sought. On 25 July DSS asked a consultant (to whom I refer as consultant W) at the hospital to examine Mr G.On 13 October consultant W did that and reported that Mr G related the start of his problem back to an incident in 1979 when he had been working as a welder and had experienced a sudden onset of pain in his right elbow while carrying cables.

Consultant W said that he had seen Mr G in the hospital’s orthopaedic clinic in January 1988 and that his continuing symptoms were mainly due to tennis elbow rather than tenosynovitis. Consultant W said that in his experience tennis elbow was not normally precipitated by one particular incident, although the symptoms might have been aggravated by the heavy work that Mr G had to do. Following receipt of that decision Mr G wrote to DSS asking them to explain the medical report made by consultant W, with specific reference to what was wrong with his elbow and forearm.

He also asked for an explanation of how the decision had been made. He complained that DSS were discriminating against him Depreciation Schedule Ato. He spoke of an accident he had suffered while working as a welder and of the industrial injury he had sustained. He said that if he could not claim IIDB in respect of a PID, then surely he could claim for an IA. On 24 January DSS wrote to the solicitors addressing the questions that Mr G had asked.

DSS said that they were not authorised to disclose information about the medical report, but they undertook to refer Mr G’s request to a senior medical officer. They gave details of the conditions for payment of IIDB in respect of an IA. Those included the need to establish that there had been an event or occurrence which was capable of being described as an accident, and that the claimant has suffered personal injury as a result of the IA. On 9 February the solicitors wrote to DSS saying that Mr G wished to appeal to an AMA.