Leeway with 'wholly and exclusively for business use' regarding furniture?

[northernladuk]

No chance - dual purpose on sale will trump everything else

What Eek says. It would have to be owned by the business but your house and lease is owned personally. The expenses are going to be the least of your problems trying to get that to work.

[eek]

No chance - dual purpose on sale will trump everything else

[looonytunes]

now that WFH more is more commn, and needing an office to work from which will only serve as a work space and nothing else, what the HRMC stance on either building at out building which is solely for an office / work purposes.

OR

Rather than something separate to the building its attached to your current premise but all intents and purposes it will act as the self contained / separate unit, the only difference being is the proximity to the house

Could you
A) only claim office expenditure to kit out either example
B) could you go a step further and claim, via repair and maintenance, the structural costs of either option?

[Paralytic]

Logo's clothing is claimable but turning up with a T-shirt "Dave's Java Jobs" isn't going to look great.

I've created a design many here can use

[d000hg]

Logo's clothing is claimable but turning up with a T-shirt "Dave's Java Jobs" isn't going to look great.

If you want to put your logo on your suit then let us know how it goes. Although who wears suits?!

[eek]

Unlikely.

Nope I think you would get away with claiming the tax on branded polo shirts see

How To Claim Clothing As A Business Expense | One accounting

I know it's a deductible cost for the conferences I used to help organise..

You would also look like a junior employee while wearing it so I wouldn't recommend it.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I don't think that would work for a suit, but a contractor might be able to claim something similar for "smart casual" clothing.

Unlikely.

[hobnob]

Clothing is a classic example of something that has inherent duality of purpose but even within this there are a limited number of exemptions such as uniform, specialist clothing (e.g. safety clothing), costumes (think actors) and I think famously, barristers gowns and wig.

Regarding uniform, I've worked in a couple of places (as a permie) where people were issued with branded clothing, e.g. a polo shirt with the company name on it. I don't think that would work for a suit, but a contractor might be able to claim something similar for "smart casual" clothing.

[jamesbrown]

The major exception to this being office suits - things you wouldn't be seen dead in otherwise, but not allowed as an expense. Despite many years buying suits and shirts wholly and specifically for this purpose.

Actually, that is a classic example of the opposite, the famous case being a barrister (I think, or similar) whose black attire was deemed to have the secondary purpose of "preserving comfort and decency".

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

The major exception to this being office suits - things you wouldn't be seen dead in otherwise, but not allowed as an expense. Despite many years buying suits and shirts wholly and specifically for this purpose.

Clothing is a classic example of something that has inherent duality of purpose but even within this there are a limited number of exemptions such as uniform, specialist clothing (e.g. safety clothing), costumes (think actors) and I think famously, barristers gowns and wig.