rules regarding clothing


R

repo

hi..

with regard to setting up new business and ongoing tax relief etc.
what are (if any) the rules regarding claiming for clothes that are bought
essentially for business purposes.
for instance in my case i'm having to buy a few suits, and some other
clothing for day to day work when at a customers site.

is there anything from these purchases that i can claim with regard to tax
and vat etc.

thanks in advance
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Rob Meade

...
is there anything from these purchases that i can claim with regard to tax
and vat etc.
<guessing>

I would have thought so, if it was a 'uniform' etc you'd be able to surely,
so I don't see why not....

</guessing>

Regards

Rob
 
J

Jonathan Bryce

repo said:
with regard to setting up new business and ongoing tax relief etc.
what are (if any) the rules regarding claiming for clothes that are bought
essentially for business purposes.
for instance in my case i'm having to buy a few suits, and some other
clothing for day to day work when at a customers site.

is there anything from these purchases that i can claim with regard to tax
and vat etc.
Probably not.

You can claim for uniforms if they have the business name on them, and for
protective clothing that is required to do the job safely - such as hard
hats.
 
D

Dave

Probably not.

You can claim for uniforms if they have the business name on them, and for
protective clothing that is required to do the job safely - such as hard
hats.
and you'll find that some occupations have a "fixed rate expenses"
allowance for clothing (bar/catering staff... overalls) as Jonathon says
usually with the employers logo on them, primarily so you can't go out
partying on a Friday night in your "uniform"


More information from yourself is required for a definitive answer or
ask your local tax office.

Dave
--

----- + ----- + -----
The internet is too big to fit in your recycle bin
Do you REALLY want to delete it?
----- + ----- + -----
 
J

John Pointon

repo said:
hi..

with regard to setting up new business and ongoing tax relief etc.
what are (if any) the rules regarding claiming for clothes that are bought
essentially for business purposes.
for instance in my case i'm having to buy a few suits, and some other
clothing for day to day work when at a customers site.

is there anything from these purchases that i can claim with regard to tax
and vat etc.

thanks in advance
This is an old question.

A business may claim a deduction for revenue expenditure if it is
incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade. What
expenditure is so incured has been discussed by the courts many, many
times.

One factor is whether the expenditure simply represents the normal costs
of daily life. It has been held that expenditure by sole traders on
clothes (to meet a specific dress code) and food (whilst working away
from home) are not deductible as people must wear some form of clothing
and eat, regardless of the specific requirements of certain professions
or where they are working ( see Mallalieu v Drummond [1983] ,
Caillebotte v Quinn [1975] )

An exception to this rule is uniforms and protective clothing; where
people are required to wear uniforms or protective clothing, this will
be deductible.

The VAT treatment follows that for income/corporation tax.


John Pointon
Accountant, Tax Consultant
"In business to grow your business"
 
P

Peter Saxton

hi..

with regard to setting up new business and ongoing tax relief etc.
what are (if any) the rules regarding claiming for clothes that are bought
essentially for business purposes.
for instance in my case i'm having to buy a few suits, and some other
clothing for day to day work when at a customers site.

is there anything from these purchases that i can claim with regard to tax
and vat etc.

thanks in advance
I would doubt you could claim it unless it was a uniform.
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald Raygun

John said:
This is an old question.

A business may claim a deduction for revenue expenditure if it is
incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade. What
expenditure is so incured has been discussed by the courts many, many
times.

One factor is whether the expenditure simply represents the normal costs
of daily life. It has been held that expenditure by sole traders on
clothes (to meet a specific dress code) and food (whilst working away
from home) are not deductible as people must wear some form of clothing
and eat,
Of course people must wear *some* clothes, but surely the "wholly
and exclusively" test is met if there is a dress code by reason of
work, which the person would never personally align to by choice.
It would follow, that if you *had to* buy a *special* suit for work,
which you wouldn't be seen dead in outwith work, then its full
purchase cost should be allowed.

In the case of food, if you would normally bring your own
sandwiches in to work, but when going for a business lunch
you had to pay the exorbitant prices of the staff canteen
(or the nearest pub), then this is another situation in which
the extra expenses are clearly incurred "wholly and exclusively"
for work reasons. You would never normally consider a couple of
pints at lunchtime, would you, unless work made them "necessary".

But there is a difference between the clothes and the food.
With food, you could only claim the amount by which the canteen
or pub price exceeds what you would normally spend on making your
sandwiches. With the clothes, the whole purchase cost should
be allowed, because there is not really any question of having
to buy other, cheaper, clothes instead. Mind you, there could
be a wear-and-tear question. By wearing the damned suit, you
are reducing the wear-and-tear load on the clothes you already
own, thus theoretically saving some money. On the other hand,
by choice you would probably get more mileage out of the clothes
you would wear by choice instead. Then, there's the matter of
maintenance costs. Suits cost more to dry clean than ordinary
clothes cost to launder, per day worn.
 
J

Jonathan Bryce

Ronald said:
Of course people must wear *some* clothes, but surely the "wholly
and exclusively" test is met if there is a dress code by reason of
work, which the person would never personally align to by choice.
It would follow, that if you *had to* buy a *special* suit for work,
which you wouldn't be seen dead in outwith work, then its full
purchase cost should be allowed.
Barrister's gowns are not allowable for tax purposes even although they are
required to wear them in court and it isn't the sort of thing you would
want to wear when you go shopping etc.
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Jonathan said:
Barrister's gowns are not allowable for tax purposes even although they
are required to wear them in court and it isn't the sort of thing you
would want to wear when you go shopping etc.
Poppycock. If the "wholly and exclusively" test is fully met, then
they *are* allowable. I'd like to see what feeble argument IR would
seek to field in claiming to deny the W&E test is met here.
 
J

Jonathan Bryce

Ronald said:
Poppycock. If the "wholly and exclusively" test is fully met, then
they *are* allowable. I'd like to see what feeble argument IR would
seek to field in claiming to deny the W&E test is met here.
This has already been decided in court.

They argued that the clothes had a dual purpose of keeping you warm and
appropriately covered as well has satisfying the demands of the court.
 
A

Andy D

It's effectively the same as for cars.

The reason you can't claim VAT on cars, is because there will always be some
element of personal use out of it. Hence it fails the exclusivity test.
The same applies to clothing. uniforms etc will be fine, as the sole purpose
of the uniform is for business use.

Suits and other items, no, as there would always be some personal use in it.

But if you are in doubt, contact HCME.


hi..

with regard to setting up new business and ongoing tax relief etc.
what are (if any) the rules regarding claiming for clothes that are bought
essentially for business purposes.
for instance in my case i'm having to buy a few suits, and some other
clothing for day to day work when at a customers site.

is there anything from these purchases that i can claim with regard to tax
and vat etc.

thanks in advance
I would doubt you could claim it unless it was a uniform.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Martin

Jonathan Bryce said:
Barrister's gowns are not allowable for tax purposes even although they are
required to wear them in court and it isn't the sort of thing you would
want to wear when you go shopping etc.
ISTR it was the "normal" clothes under the gown that were disallowed in
Mallalieu, but gown and wig etc were allowed.
 
D

Doug Ramage

It is possible (and there have been successful court cases) to claim input
tax on cars, so long as they are not available for private use (and are not
in fact so used). However, it is usually "easier said then done", as C&E
will scrutinise the claim very closely.
 
A

Andy D

I know....but it's v difficult to justify.


Doug Ramage said:
It is possible (and there have been successful court cases) to claim input
tax on cars, so long as they are not available for private use (and are not
in fact so used). However, it is usually "easier said then done", as C&E
will scrutinise the claim very closely.
 
D

David Floyd

Of course people must wear *some* clothes, but surely the "wholly
and exclusively" test is met if there is a dress code by reason of
work, which the person would never personally align to by choice.
It would follow, that if you *had to* buy a *special* suit for work,
which you wouldn't be seen dead in outwith work, then its full
purchase cost should be allowed.
Should be but isn't - see Mallalieu v Drummond HL 1983

DF
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Jonathan said:
This has already been decided in court.

They argued that the clothes had a dual purpose of keeping you warm and
appropriately covered as well has satisfying the demands of the court.
This is a joke, right?
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mike Lewis

"Ronald Raygun wrote"
This is a joke, right?
No it's not a joke and Jon quoted legal cases establishing the principle.
You don't get a tax deduction for any clothing you could wear outside work.
 
T

Tim

"Ronald Raygun wrote"
No it's not a joke and Jon quoted legal cases establishing the principle.
You don't get a tax deduction for any clothing you could wear outside
work.

OK, I suppose you *could* wear a barrister's gown "outside work". I don't
think many of them would though!

Similarly, you *could* wear your work's protective clothing outside work
too. Or a uniform with the business's name on in it. So how come you get
the tax deduction here then??
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Mike said:
"Ronald Raygun wrote"

No it's not a joke and Jon quoted legal cases establishing the principle.
You don't get a tax deduction for any clothing you could wear outside
work.
Rubbish. The over-riding principle (established, I think, by statute,
not case law) is that any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively
for work does qualify for tax deduction. The only opportunity for case
law to bend this is by finding whether or not in any particular type
of circumstance the facts meet the W&E test.

It has already been acknowledged that uniforms do qualify, yet there
is nothing which would prevent a uniform being worn outside work,
except that the putative wearer would feel a right prat walking
around the supermarket in his "Jimmy's Window Cleaning Services"
overalls. But it happens, simply when it would be inconvenient
to change. But would Jimmy wear them while taking his girlfriend
to a restaurant?

So the real test is not whether you *could* wear them, but whether
you *would* wear them. That's what makes uniforms (and barristers'
wigs and gowns - but not the suits underneath) qualify. I'll bet
that a barrister who "wouldn't be seen dead" in said suit outside
of court would initially meet with resistance to a claim, because
in general these people do dress privately in a manner similar to
how they dress at work, and for a claim to be allowed, evidence of
untypical behaviour would clinch it. For example, they might show
that they commute in jeans and T shirt, or in lycra cycling gear,
and change into said suit on arrival at work.

After all, it's the same with company cars. Where a car is never
used privately, it is fully tax deductible, but throw in commuting,
and then there is a private use element. I suppose if the barrister
wore the suit while commuting, but then changed into his more casual
evening wear once he got home, then there would be held to be some
private use of the suit too. Even then, I'd expect some kind of
apportionment to apply, and a generous one if the work suit is
either sufficiently unlike his private suits, or is in fact never
worn privately.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

David Floyd

Why does Raygun think he knows better than the law?

I have suggested before that he checks out the case of:
Mallalieu v Drummond HL 1983

DF
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top