Suits

[TheFaQQer]

I met a doctor recently who told me that he claims for his suits as a business expense and was surprised that I dont claim for mine. His logic was that he only wears the suits for work and so they should be treated just like nurses uniforms or mechanics overalls.

Similarly, I dont wear my pinstripes outside of work and so can I claim them as a business expense ?

NHS professionals have a special case - however, your doctor friend does not fall into that case:

Where the clothing is suitable for general everyday wear (whether or not it is in fact so worn) cash allowances towards its purchase are taxable.

The key part of that is applicable to all occupations - if you could were the clothing for general everyday wear (whether or not you do so), then it's taxable.

[d000hg]

I seem to remember hearing/reading that if you have clothes made for work with your company logo on, they can be claimed for (citation needed, anyone?) so a builder can claim back his "Bob's Builders" T-shirts and fleeces for example. I think such a thing would spoil the look of your suit though.

But it does not actually say where the logotype should be - inside/outside, does it ?

Get 5 suits from M&S and send them to a company specialising in printing custom images on clothes asking to put it over M&S logo inside .. same with shirts

Yeah, they'll never see through that. You might as well just lie and save the printing costs.

[Tingles]

Change your company name to your initials - put those intials on your business work shirts - nice cuff monogram.

Hey presto!

Company uniform.

[minestrone]

Not going to happen, not ever.

[IR35 Avoider]

Assuming you can convince a judge you would be happy to go to work in only shoes, socks, underwear, shirt and tie, you may be able to claim that your suit is wholly and exclusively for work, and is therefore tax deductible.

The lawyer who tried to claim her court clothes (in the eighties I think) lost because she failed to meet this standard. The judge concluded that in addition to being suitable attire for court, her clothing served the non-work-related purposes of protecting her modesty and keeping her warm.

[RichardCranium]

The lawyer who tried to claim her court clothes (in the eighties I think) lost because she failed to meet this standard. The judge concluded that in addition to being suitable attire for court, her clothing served the non-work-related purposes of protecting her modesty and keeping her warm.

The lawyer was a barrister and the judge was the Law Lords.

Here is an explanation of when some clothing could be claimed for by a hairdresser, but it won't work for us.

Here is the answer for us:

Different treatment for ‘uniform’, ‘costume’ and an ‘everyday wardrobe’

You should disallow expenditure on ordinary clothing worn by a trader during the course of their trade. This remains so even where particular standards of dress are required by, for example, the rules of a professional body.

The case of Mallalieu v Drummond [1983] 57TC330 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.

That link also gives all the details of the barrister's case.

Mind you, if you're a celebrity, the rules are far more lax.

[Naaarwich]

Thx

Thanks everyone for your postings. So looks like I should carry on as before and not make a claim.