Reply to: Claiming for Business Clothing Against TAX

[boredsenseless]

I think I've found the solution:

Become a naturist, then any clothing you would wear to work would have to be deemed business clothing because you normally don't wear any outside working hours.

But we are all IT geeks so that wouldn't be nice for the rest of the planet would it!

[Bigbird]

Found it! You can indeed claim a deduction for PPE even if you're an employee, but only for the PPE itself and not for any other stuff you may wear under it. Incidentally the mallieu case referred to in my quote above was the lady solicitor that some of the other posters have referred to and she did indeed lose her case at the Lords stage.

EIM32470 - Other expenses: clothing: protective clothing
A deduction can be permitted for the cost of genuinely protective clothing that is worn as a matter of physical necessity because of the nature of the job and where the employee must bear the cost. This will typically cover items such as overalls, protective gloves and boots.

In the case of Woodcock v CIR (51TC698) the taxpayer wanted a deduction for the cost of ordinary clothing worn underneath protective clothing and for his shoes and glasses worn at work. A deduction was refused because none of this clothing can be said to be worn wholly and exclusively in performing the duties of the employment.

Where you accept that a deduction can be permitted for items of protective clothing you should not also permit a deduction for other clothing worn at the same time, see example EIM32471.

[Bigbird]

I think PPE is treated differently to "normal" clothing though.

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

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.

Will have to trawl through the expenses booklet again but I think there are even circumstanes where you can claim allowance for PPE as an employed taxpayer..........

[ASB]

Well this has me worried now.

Im a highways engineer and i buy and provide my own personal protective clothing. This includes high visibility jacket, hard hat, site boots and vest.

I have in the past claimed for cleaning costs for when they get dirty and i have to take them down to the dry cleaners.

I will soon be replacing my protective clothing with new ones and will be putting these through as an expense.

According to my accountant im doing nothing wrong by claiming for them or the dry cleaning costs.............

is my accountant right?

Yes.

http://search.hmrc.gov.uk/kbroker/in...&ss=&mt=0&to=0

[Sockpuppet]

The word is "protective". Its a health and safety related cost not a "uniform cost".

You wouldn't wear a high vis vest down the pub...or would you.

[Maxamus]

Well this has me worried now.

Im a highways engineer and i buy and provide my own personal protective clothing. This includes high visibility jacket, hard hat, site boots and vest.

I have in the past claimed for cleaning costs for when they get dirty and i have to take them down to the dry cleaners.

I will soon be replacing my protective clothing with new ones and will be putting these through as an expense.

According to my accountant im doing nothing wrong by claiming for them or the dry cleaning costs.............

is my accountant right?

[oraclesmith]

If I were to get half a dozen polo shirts made up with the MyCo logo on them, would this be allowable as a business expense?

I guess they would if you wore them for work and not social occasions. For example, corporate staff may have an official company uniform of a logo jacket, shirt/blouse and trousers/skirt which they can look after, wash etc but they aren't the sort of thing you'd were to the pub. A nice polo might not fit into this model. A company logo tie might.

Another way of looking at this is if you had some T-shirts or polo's made up for promotional use. You'd have to actually use them for promotions though (eg. give some away), which may negate any tax savings.

[PAG]

If I were to get half a dozen polo shirts made up with the MyCo logo on them, would this be allowable as a business expense?

probably you'll get away with that. But then once in the radar they wil use IR35 against you. Then you'll be worse off, even if you are outside IR35, think about all that waste of time !!!!

[Sockpuppet]

If I were to get half a dozen polo shirts made up with the MyCo logo on them, would this be allowable as a business expense?

Yes.

[Mustang]

If I were to get half a dozen polo shirts made up with the MyCo logo on them, would this be allowable as a business expense?

[philip@wellwoodhoyle]

Interesting new wording in the latest taxes act - Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005

"Wholly and exclusively and losses rules
34 Expenses not wholly and exclusively for trade and unconnected losses

(1) In calculating the profits of a trade, no deduction is allowed for-

(a) expenses not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade, or
(b) losses not connected with or arising out of the trade.
(2) If an expense is incurred for more than one purpose, this section does not prohibit a deduction for any identifiable part or identifiable proportion of the expense which is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade. "

I don't think this new wording has been reflected in HMRC's manuals or guidance leaflets yet, nor will it automatically supercede the long history of case law, but it certainly does suggest that the original logic of not allowing normal work clothes on the sole grounds of duality of purpose no longer applies and that should open the flood gates for people to perhaps claim a proportion of their clothing costs based upon the time spent wearing them for work as opposed to the total time spent wearing them - perhaps???

There have been some limited articles on this topic in the professional accountancy press, but nothing substantial has yet appeared - I wonder if HMRC's guidance notes for the 2006/7 tax returns will be amended to cover this?

[oraclesmith]

There's nothing to stop her wearing court robes in public either.

Or in private !! Wahay!

Of course that holds for all work clothing.

[ratewhore]

I wonder if male escorts can claim the cost of cock-rings. Damn expensive!!!

[RW in possible plan B mode]

[oraclesmith]

I think she lost because her clothing served a dual purpose. In addition to being appropriate for court, it also prevented her from being naked, and that was not a business purpose, therefore the wearing (and purchase) of it was not "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of trade" which is the criterion that an expense must fulfil to be tax deductible.

...and I guess it was normal high street clothing - just a dark colour which she wouldn't have worn by choice - which is a bit of a weak argument and opens up all sorts of tax dodges. I guess if it were court robes, then it would be solely for the purpose of doing business.

[Maxamus]

When Hector takes you to court for fraudulent expenses

ha ha nice