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

[SussexSeagull]

I personally have a pair of trainers I use exclusively for exercise and wouldn't wear anywhere else (less getting to and from the gym) to reduce wear and have other trainers for leisure purposes.

Surely if a personal trainer does a similar thing there is a case for claiming 'exercise' trainers?

[northernladuk]

I personally have a pair of trainers I use exclusively for exercise and wouldn't wear anywhere else (less getting to and from the gym) to reduce wear and have other trainers for leisure purposes.

Surely if a personal trainer does a similar thing there is a case for claiming 'exercise' trainers?

Good argument... but... I have a suit, tie and shoes I only wear at work. Can I claim them? No I can't. It's not safety wear or a uniform. The trainers are available for use, just like the company car sitting on your drive, so duality kicks in.

[Goatfell]

It could be argued that training shoes are safety footwear for a work environment. Yes they won't protect your feet in the same way that steel toe-capped boots will - but different environment, different risks, different solution. As for duality of purpose, there's nothing to stop you wearing BSI Kitemarked safety shoes out and about either (other than the fashion police perhaps).

Anyway, surely it would be company policy that all their personal trainers wear a corporate uniform (even if there's only one of them)

[Andrew@Wisteria]

I personally have a pair of trainers I use exclusively for exercise and wouldn't wear anywhere else (less getting to and from the gym) to reduce wear and have other trainers for leisure purposes.

Surely if a personal trainer does a similar thing there is a case for claiming 'exercise' trainers?

This is what Mallalieu argued and lost.

BIM37910 - Wholly & exclusively: expenditure having an intrinsic duality of purpose: Clothing

'The case of Mallalieu v Drummond [1983] 57TC330 (which is discussed in detail below) established that no deduction is available under Case I/II Schedule D for the costs of clothing which forms part of an ‘everyday' wardrobe. This remains so even where the taxpayer can show that they only wear such clothing in the course of their profession. It is irrelevant that the person chooses not to wear the clothing in question on non-business occasions, the only question is whether the clothing might suitably be worn as part of a hypothetical person’s ‘everyday' wardrobe.'

[SussexSeagull]

This is what Mallalieu argued and lost.

BIM37910 - Wholly & exclusively: expenditure having an intrinsic duality of purpose: Clothing

'The case of Mallalieu v Drummond [1983] 57TC330 (which is discussed in detail below) established that no deduction is available under Case I/II Schedule D for the costs of clothing which forms part of an ‘everyday' wardrobe. This remains so even where the taxpayer can show that they only wear such clothing in the course of their profession. It is irrelevant that the person chooses not to wear the clothing in question on non-business occasions, the only question is whether the clothing might suitably be worn as part of a hypothetical person’s ‘everyday' wardrobe.'

Interesting. So a climbing instructor could claim climbing shoes as they are unlikely to be worn elsewhere but a ballet teacher couldn't claim ballet slippers as they could be worn as part of everyday life?

[northernladuk]

Interesting. So a climbing instructor could claim climbing shoes as they are unlikely to be worn elsewhere but a ballet teacher couldn't claim ballet slippers as they could be worn as part of everyday life?

Eh? You can't wear ballet shoes as part of everyday life.

[SussexSeagull]

Eh? You can't wear ballet shoes as part of everyday life.

Don't women wear Ballet pumps in civilian life?

I hasten to add I bow to any expertise you may have in this field.

[northernladuk]

Don't women wear Ballet pumps in civilian life?

I hasten to add I bow to any expertise you may have in this field.

I thought they were specialist with the wooden toes and no sole so not everyday wear... but I am no expert either lol

[Moscow Mule]

I don't need to wear expensive stability trainers as part of my daily wear - I could easily wear a £20 pair of tulip kickers.

However, if I was running with clients (say 100 miles a week) in the tulip kickers my knees and ankles would soon be screwed to the point I couldn't work.

If you understand the business of being a PT I think it becomes clear that the trainers are specialist and safety equipment. I think point would be reinforced if you had different shoes for each activity (running, gym, aerobics, tennis).

I realise you might have a problem explaining that to any inspector though.

[qian]

Actually, yes he probably can.

Trainers are protective clothing required to prevent injury - even more so if he has a pair for work, and a pair for outside work.

Interesting reading (if you find accountants discussing bras interesting)
Sports bra/tops allowable expenses for self employed fitness instructor? | AccountingWEB

Thank you very much for your information, I do appreciate.