Legitimate Expense or not?

[xenomorph]

Well, that's your problem. It's for you to be able to show that the test is met, not for HMRC to show the opposite. But, no, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that a computer is for business use and that any personal use is incidental. Wifi equipment being continuously used for personal internet access, not so much. Then again, most of the questions around here w/r to expenses are not genuine questions; they are mostly "thanks for your input, but I reject your reality and substitute my own, which happens to be - it's fine". Anyway, good luck, you probably won't get caught.

haha
I not decided to do it yet hence the thread otherwise would have done it and not bothered.

[jamesbrown]

Is that not same situation as things like Laptops? Laptop purchased for business use solely is only allowed but how can you prove that it is?

Well, that's your problem. It's for you to be able to show that the test is met, not for HMRC to show the opposite. But, no, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that a computer is for business use and that any personal use is incidental. Wifi equipment being continuously used for personal internet access, not so much. Then again, most of the questions around here w/r to expenses are not genuine questions; they are mostly "thanks for your input, but I reject your reality and substitute my own, which happens to be - it's fine". Anyway, good luck, you probably won't get caught.

[xenomorph]

Actually, paying for broadband via your company (and receiving CT relief) is a definite yes if you have a dedicated line, separate from your personal line, and no BIK will arise because there is no personal use (that is a separate line). The problems arise when you have a mix of personal and business use and the two are difficult to separate, as in your equipment scenario.

Is that not same situation as things like Laptops? Laptop purchased for business use solely is only allowed but how can you prove that it is?

[jamesbrown]

Well paying for broadband via company is a deffo no. However it is different when it comes to access points.
But I see it from all points. Will think about it.

Actually, paying for broadband via your company (and receiving CT relief) is a definite yes if you have a dedicated line, separate from your personal line, and no BIK will arise because there is no personal use (that is a separate line). The problems arise when you have a mix of personal and business use and the two are difficult to separate, as in your equipment scenario.

[xenomorph]

Well paying for broadband via company is a deffo no. However it is different when it comes to access points.
But I see it from all points. Will think about it.

[northernladuk]

Of the three accountants I had not one of them advised claiming broadband. Personal use far exceeds business and every home needs one. I'm sure other accountants on here have also said no to broadband in most cases.

Just the fact that he is replacing his personally bought home one says it for me. Replacing a home one for a work one when nothing has changed?

It's a no from me as well.

[Lance]

Yes, I see it as an extension of the attached and you may need to consider a BIK

https://www.accountancyoffice.co.uk/...band-expenses/

is an additional router part of the the home broadband? Where does the home broadband terminate and the home office start?
I could equally keep the provided router for home use and use the company router for the office. Where does that fit?
This is a very grey area to my mind.

I pay personally for the service to the xDSL socket and from there it could be either. If I am asked about the router by HMRC it is "for the purposes of extending my personal home broadband to the office". Which is true, although with a tiny spin. *Perspective*

[jamesbrown]

why is a router different to a computer? It's not really is it? It doesn't have to meet that test IMO. It's not like a desk, or a chair, or a car.
Personal money pays for the broadband line, that's a given already. The IT devices connected to it are different.
Perhaps my interpretation is a bit liberal, but I needed faster, more reliable WiFi in my office so the business paid for that.

It isn’t, necessarily, but it’s easy to justify a computer as wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade. A gaming computer (one purchased for personal use) wouldn’t be. It isn’t a “given” that the broadband line is a personal one, but the OP notes that theirs is a personal one. Adding a dedicated business line is a legitimate business expense and would make it easier to justify any related equipment as meeting the test. If you feel as though you can meet the test, knock yourself out, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable with this one.

[ladymuck]

Yes, I see it as an extension of the attached and you may need to consider a BIK

https://www.accountancyoffice.co.uk/...band-expenses/

Can you reclaim the cost of home broadband?

Yes you can – but there are restrictions as you would expect. The EIM01475 guidance from HMRC’s website is useful here.

Limited Companies

Company contracts and pays for the broadband service

If a broadband contract is undertaken in the name of a limited company and the service is provided at the home of a Director or employee but paid for directly by the company, the monthly broadband cost is a tax deductible expense for the company for corporation tax purposes. If it is not possible to breakdown work and private usage, HMRC accept that providing any private use is insignificant there is no taxable benefit for the employee.

If the broadband connection is used for a mixture of business and personal use then a benefit in kind will apply with the full amount paid by the company becoming taxable on the individual.

[Lance]

This is for an existing broadband connection that is not paid for by the company so I cannot see how it would meet the wholly and exclusively test.

why is a router different to a computer? It's not really is it? It doesn't have to meet that test IMO. It's not like a desk, or a chair, or a car.
Personal money pays for the broadband line, that's a given already. The IT devices connected to it are different.
Perhaps my interpretation is a bit liberal, but I needed faster, more reliable WiFi in my office so the business paid for that.

[jamesbrown]

This is for an existing broadband connection that is not paid for by the company so I cannot see how it would meet the wholly and exclusively test.

[Lance]

Yes.

To qualify that..... Replacing your home broadband router that has failed would not be a business expense.
Buying a router, to extend the home broadband line to your home office is a valid business expense.

Both describe what you are doing. One is claimable the other isn't. It's about perspective. I replaced the provider supplied router with a business router, and mesh WiFi as the provider supplied onw, whilst valid for home use, didn't allow the features I need for work.

[cannon999]

Yes.

[jamesbrown]

No.

[xenomorph]

so my wifi router finally decided to drop dead and as I am working from home for forseeable future until at least january 2022 do people think getting a reliable wifi access point for my house would be something I can claim as a expense even though it will deffo be used for personal use also?