Can I claim my glasses as expenses ?

[sasguru]

Just noticed the guy's name 'topgun' - presumably they're cheesy mirrored ones for small egotistical people into alternative religions (nb. didnt dare say anything else against said religion or they'd have me )

You mean the pile of crud called Scientology
Don't get me started ...

[Not So Wise]

No I don't think so. Comes under the same rules as clothes... i.e. :

Yes you need clothes to work, but you also need clothes at other times too so they're not exclusively for work purposes so not a valid expense.

Hmm that raises an interesting point, i only ever wear a suit and tie for work, thus could it be argued that these are a valid expence?

[DimPrawn]

The IR view on this is that you are all tax dodging disguised employees anyway, so you can't claim tulip.

HTH

[Methuselah]

The IR view on this is that you are all tax dodging disguised employees anyway, so you can't claim tulip.

HTH

If you work on a computer all day, and use different glasses for that, then you can claim them from your employer.

[r0bly0ns]

Hmm that raises an interesting point, i only ever wear a suit and tie for work, thus could it be argued that these are a valid expence?

I asked my accountant this when first starting out.

The response was that it was only claimable if the item of clothing was specifically designed for doing the job you are doing.

I.e. overalls, yes if you are a mechanic or simillar.
Because they are specifically designed for keeping what's underneath clean when doing dirty jobs.

But a suit / shirt / trousers, no, not as someone who sits at a desk all day.
Because it is not specifically designed for wearing whilst sitting at a desk all day.

[Muttley08]

You mean the pile of crud called Scientology
Don't get me started ...

I read a load of stuff about it after that documentary....they're completely nuts...

I'm an aethiest but like to understand other religions, but when I've seen a couple of interviews, read about it, it's clear this lot really are as mad as the proverbial y-fronts...

Everyone's entitled to their religion, but...

[xoggoth]

If they are required especially for use with your computer, yes you can, otherwise not.

This is from accountingweb article 2000

Eyesight tests
Employers have certain duties (since the introduction of the Health
and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992) to provide
free eye tests for employees who are required to use computers for
their work.

The Revenue allow an exemption where an employee is required to use
a computer or other visual display unit (VDU) as part of the normal
duties of his or her employment. Where this is the case, no benefit
in kind will arise in respect of an eye sight test. Furthermore, if
glasses are provided only for VDU use then no chargeable benefit
will arise if the employer meets the cost of these. The NIC
treatment is the same.

If glasses are provided for more general use, but include a special
prescription for VDU use, then the Revenue manuals say that no
benefit will arise in respect of ‘a proportion of the cost relating
to the special prescription’.

Where the contract is between
the employer and the optician, the provision of the glasses will now
represent a payment in kind that will attract a Class 1A liability.

[IR35 Avoider]

Hmm that raises an interesting point, i only ever wear a suit and tie for work, thus could it be argued that these are a valid expence?

The famous case in this regard is the barrister who argued that she would never wear her court clothes in a non-working situation, so should be able to claim. The judge turned her down, I think on the grounds of dual-purpose. While her clothes may have served the purpose of being appropriate dress for court, they also served the non-work purpose of preventing her from being naked, therefore as an expense they were not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of work.

(I last read the details of this case several years ago, so I may have got it wrong...)

[Old Greg]

If you work on a computer all day, and use different glasses for that, then you can claim them from your employer.

This is spot on. They need to be sepctacles that you would not otherwise use (e.g. for driving or for reading). In theory there are not many people who fit into this category (especially not under the age of 40-something), but in practice if you can get an Optometrist to write on a spectacle prescription, 'For VDU use only', you'll be OK. If you have a small prescription and genuinely don't need them for driving, the trick is to say that you get headaches when you use the computer, and that you take regular breaks from use (a few minutes every hour or two). That should swing it. There may be a limit to how much you can spend on combined frame and lenses and claim back (if you buy 3k Cartier frames, questions may be asked - don't know if there's a formal cut-off). Your accountant should be able to advise, and you can claim back the eye examination fee.

[Bluebird]

The famous case in this regard is the barrister who argued that she would never wear her court clothes in a non-working situation, so should be able to claim. The judge turned her down, I think on the grounds of dual-purpose. While her clothes may have served the purpose of being appropriate dress for court, they also served the non-work purpose of preventing her from being naked, therefore as an expense they were not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of work.

(I last read the details of this case several years ago, so I may have got it wrong...)

No you are spot on.