CCTV at my home

[Scrag Meister]

Is there any chance of partial company reclaim of cost, as is protecting some expensive company kit?

Hopeful I know, but thought I would ask.

Having an alarm fitted too.

[Clare@InTouch]

Not in my view I'm afraid - it's not wholly and exclusively for business. If you did put it through, there's duality of purpose so a benefit in kind.

[northernladuk]

WCS +1. Simple as that really.

You can of course claim it and just hope you don't get investigated of course but you know it isn't might style to suggest this is a good course of action.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

nope - duality of purpose - sorry

[ASB]

nope - duality of purpose - sorry

I just wonder if the company bought the CCTV and Alarm one could try an argument of the private use being incidental (not saying it would work, just it might be worth a try).

If it fails then the BIK is calculated (if I recall) at 10% of the asset value so it may still be cost effective.

[BoredBloke]

Surely there should be some proportion of the cost that could be charged. If the busuiness is registered at the address and the address gets turned over the business will lose some of its assets. So while the security system does have a duality of purpose, part if it is in protecting the company kit - it only seems fair that a proportion of the cost can ge charged to the business - perhaps on the basis of what proportion of the house is given over to business use.

[MyUserName]

Is there any chance of partial company reclaim of cost, as is protecting some expensive company kit?

Hopeful I know, but thought I would ask.

Having an alarm fitted too.

Is anything in the house that belongs to you rather than the company?
If so, the alarm is not purely for business use.

[northernladuk]

Surely there should be some proportion of the cost that could be charged. If the busuiness is registered at the address and the address gets turned over the business will lose some of its assets. So while the security system does have a duality of purpose, part if it is in protecting the company kit - it only seems fair that a proportion of the cost can ge charged to the business - perhaps on the basis of what proportion of the house is given over to business use.

Nope. Wholly and exclusively or nothing.

[Clare@InTouch]

Nope. Wholly and exclusively or nothing.

Agreed. The total cost of the alarm is £X, and that doesn't change whether it's protecting your business assets in addition to your home or not. If there was an extra £Y incurred wholly and exclusively to also protect the business kit, and it wouldn't have been incurred if it wasn't for the business kit, then I could see logic in claiming £Y.

But otherwise no - there's no incremental additional cost caused by business use.

[BoredBloke]

Nope. Wholly and exclusively or nothing.

Typical HMRC bolluxs then! If it is protecting assets owned by both parties then why is it that the second party cannot make a reasonable contribution.