The cost of trainer is an allowable expense for tax purposes or not?

[Moscow Mule]

I thinks a sports bra is different to trainers as it is protective. Trainers are worn for fashion as well as sports...

If you'd seen how minging some of the stability trainers are there'd be no doubt as to the unity of purpose

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

But you can use trainers for his own personal sessions and wearing generally so are not specialist, safety or uniform so would fall under duality surely.

Duality is a bit of a strange one. Bits of the law, eg Mallalieu v Drummond (Barrister couldn't claim her court clothes) point against it, but HMRC practice elsewhere eg BIM37910 - Wholly & exclusively: expenditure having an intrinsic duality of purpose: Clothing, is more liberal

Most professionals have to keep up appearances but their clothing costs are not allowable (even where they amount to a quasi uniform as in Mallalieu).

The cost of clothing that is not part of an ‘everyday' wardrobe (for example a nurse’s uniform or evening dress (‘tails’) worn by a professional waiter) faces no such bar to deduction.

You should therefore allow a deduction for protective clothing and uniforms.

Its debatable that their lordships really called MvD on the wrong side of the line, in so far as the difference between a Barristers court outfit v a waiters tails is quite esoteric.

And then if its not clear, EIM31661 - The general rule for employees' expenses: wholly and exclusively: apportionment provides for apportionment anyway

I know I'm mixing Schedule D v E here, but its not that great a distinction.

So can a trainers gym clothing be claimed? Depends on how well its argued, how far someone is prepared to argue, and whether anyone can find a case on "all fours" with it.

Sometimes things aren't black and white, and the best answer is to look at it another way; does it matter? Is the amount material? Value of relief? Risk of enquiry / penalty.

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

Not so a sports bra but as Jessica would say claim it and let them argue it later. Just depends on attitude to risk and if the money saved is worth it.

Plan B for me, loosely, is working towards training as a yoga tutor. Wonder if I should be claiming sports bra now as necessary protective clothing to stop me getting saggy bits from too much downward dog?

[SueEllen]

Plan B for me, loosely, is working towards training as a yoga tutor. Wonder if I should be claiming sports bra now as necessary protective clothing to stop me getting saggy bits from too much downward dog?

Duality of purpose.

While it's more supportive it's underwear and there are certain circumstances I know of where women do wear sports bras where it's not exercise in the traditional sense.

Trainers are the same - I can wear a pair of trainers walking down the street as they are fashion items. However while I could wear a technical sports running coat walking down the street I'm not likely to. This where the waiter's tails pass and the barister's clothes fail.

[cojak]

Right, so it looks like if you have the brass neck you can claim it.

So to the OP, tell you mate he can but be prepared to argue the toss if challenged.

[aoxomoxoa]

Duality of purpose.

Indeed. Left and right

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Can't see how it could be claimed as a legitimate expense - definite duality of purpose - wholly, exclusively and necessarily doesn't apply here. The safety argument is really tenuous as well - how would a pair of trainers protect your tootsies if you dropped a 40 kilo weight on them??

[Contreras]

Duality of purpose.

- I can wear a pair of trainers walking down the street as they are fashion items.

Yes, you could. So it is presumed a personal benefit?

Does duality of purpose apply only to clothing, or is it just harder to argue the case?

Is it not relevant that the OP's "friend" is a professional trainer?

What if the question had been:

I have a friend who is a professional photographer and would like to know if he can claim the cost of a camera as tax allowable expense. Thank you.

[d000hg]

But you can use trainers for his own personal sessions and wearing generally so are not specialist, safety or uniform so would fall under duality surely.

But you can use a laptop for personal use and it's not specialist equipment, and yet we can legitimately buy that as a "tool of our trade".

[northernladuk]

But you can use a laptop for personal use and it's not specialist equipment, and yet we can legitimately buy that as a "tool of our trade".

Indeed but I believe it was is well documented that some personal use is allowed with IT equipment and phones. The theory is very arguable don't get me wrong but when we are talking what we can and can't do according to the documentation duality for some equipment has been considered and allowed.

We could very easily get in to the argument that only equipment used mainly for the business with some personal use is allowed but most people put home pc's through where the inverse is true and whether that should be allowable or not but that is for another thread.