Reply to: Question re business expense/benefit in kind - CCTV costs for residence/home office

[northernladuk]

There is the question of what all this is worth to your pocket and how well you like to sleep at night. The relatively small saving compared to the ambiguity makes it a no brainer in my book at this moment.

[SueEllen]

Only answer now I suppose is to ring HMR&C and ask them - care for a small wager on their answer

NOOOOO.

Then 2-4 years down the line someone queries it properly due to some tax investigation or something, and the answer changes to yes.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Only answer now I suppose is to ring HMR&C and ask them - care for a small wager on their answer

[xoggoth]

Someone asked the same question on accountingweb and got no answers:

CCTV tax deductible

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

You would think wouldn't you but I couldn't find anything relevant on the HMR&C site, mind you that doesn't mean to say it's not there

[xoggoth]

You would think there would be guidance on this. Security for small businesses is a very big issue. Been a few thefts of tools and equipment from such places round here recently. Two tradesman I know have had stuff taken from a garage and a van parked on private property. Lot of reported equipment thefts from farm outhouses etc too.

All very well to say it's insured but there is a lot off effort involved in a claim and, even assuming you can claim from that bunch of frauds who calll themselves insurance companies, your premiums will go up.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Certainly don't know for sure but can't see why, if genuinely installed to protect business equipment, it is not allowable.

The fact that it could have other uses is not relevant, this wholly and exclusively thing is often misunderstood. For example, if you do not already have broadband and have to install it in your home for work use, it is not disallowed simply because you could use it personally.

Employment income: household expenses: broadband internet charges

The rule really covers the other way round, if you already have something for personal use, you cannot then claim for business use if it it does not actually cost you any extra.

I can't find any official guidance but the way I see it is that the CCTV is not necessary for the protection of the equipment being used by the business as it would not be an essential requirement of the insurance company when providing insurance for the equipment and therefore the business is protected as the equipment could be replaced free of charge in the event of a theft. It could also be argued that the installation of a CCTV camera may assist with the apprehension of the perpetrator but would do nothing to prevent the theft. Therefore the CCTV camera is not essential to the business and cannot be claimed.

In your example, broadband access is required in order to be able to fulfil the terms of the contract and therefore, even though there could be a duality of purpose broadband is a necessity so, at the very least, a proportion of the cost could be expensed.

[seyre1972]

All -

thanks for the sound advice. (and the spirited discussion it seems to have kickedoff ..... )

I'll err on the side of caution when it comes to expenses/benefit in kind and pay for it myself.

xoggoth - I'm looking to buy IP cameras with a higher resolution rather than BNC style cctv - hence the higher cost for the equipment. This also means I can use Power Over Ethernet rathern than dual BNC/Power cables to every camera - keeping my wife happy


regards,


seyre1972

[xoggoth]

Certainly don't know for sure but can't see why, if genuinely installed to protect business equipment, it is not allowable.

The fact that it could have other uses is not relevant, this wholly and exclusively thing is often misunderstood. For example, if you do not already have broadband and have to install it in your home for work use, it is not disallowed simply because you could use it personally.

Employment income: household expenses: broadband internet charges

The rule really covers the other way round, if you already have something for personal use, you cannot then claim for business use if it it does not actually cost you any extra.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

From the information I read the equipment is used 100% to protect his business owned assets - not the house, and not the shed where he keeps it. If that is the PRIMARY purpose to buying the CCTV equipment, then yes. If its just to protect his house and shed, in which there just happens to be the business equipment, then no.

It may be that the intention is that the camera is to protect the equipment contained within the outbuilding but the fact is that it is protecting the building itself

[northernladuk]

Why would they take the risk? Well, because most of them have a drug dependency. They burgle homes in order to feed their habits. They will know that even if an alarm bell rings, they have a good few minutes to grab any stuff and bolt off. There's a higher chance that the house with the burglar alarm has better pickings inside as opposed to the house with the shabby front door and no alarm.

Also, the way in which our police forces 'count' crime statistics is a complete farce. Never believe any statistical survey because some crimes are not counted unless they have been reported to police on more than one occasion Some crimes are not even recorded for stats eek

...and don't get me started on my 'criminal justice' rant...

Higher pickings with a house that has alarms? I don't think so. People are lazy about getting alarms and burglars are more than aware of that. They also know what a nice house on average street has from the number of windows they looked in. Burglars that feed drug habits are opportunist thieves as well. They are the ones MOST likely to be put of by an alarm/camera. It is the ones that steal to order that are going to get in whatever you have protecting the house and will have already listed what you have weeks/months before.

[Greg@CapitalCity]

It is still his property whether it is a hut outside or a room. It makes no difference. The equipment is to cover his house in the main and his office space in the minor so is dual use. This won't fly. By that same logic I can pay for my house alarm because there is a PiR sensor in my office room???

Do you tell people what they want to hear and fudge the system or the reality?

From the information I read the equipment is used 100% to protect his business owned assets - not the house, and not the shed where he keeps it. If that is the PRIMARY purpose to buying the CCTV equipment, then yes. If its just to protect his house and shed, in which there just happens to be the business equipment, then no.

[PinkPoshRat]

Not what was said on a BBC crime program I saw last week. They said burglars tend to avoid houses with alarms. True, they may not be switched on but when there are so many with no alarms why would they take the risk?

Why would they take the risk? Well, because most of them have a drug dependency. They burgle homes in order to feed their habits. They will know that even if an alarm bell rings, they have a good few minutes to grab any stuff and bolt off. There's a higher chance that the house with the burglar alarm has better pickings inside as opposed to the house with the shabby front door and no alarm.

Also, the way in which our police forces 'count' crime statistics is a complete farce. Never believe any statistical survey because some crimes are not counted unless they have been reported to police on more than one occasion Some crimes are not even recorded for stats eek

...and don't get me started on my 'criminal justice' rant...

[northernladuk]

You have clearly given this some thought, and because your home office is in the garden shed it makes it easy to show the equipment is directly related to the protection of your IT equipment (unless of course you have some very expensive imported palm trees in your backyard you have not told us about).

Just to be sure, make sure you buy the equipment in the name of your business, and pay for it directly from the business bank account.

It is still his property whether it is a hut outside or a room. It makes no difference. The equipment is to cover his house in the main and his office space in the minor so is dual use. This won't fly. By that same logic I can pay for my house alarm because there is a PiR sensor in my office room???

Do you tell people what they want to hear and fudge the system or the reality?

[Greg@CapitalCity]

Looks OK

You have clearly given this some thought, and because your home office is in the garden shed it makes it easy to show the equipment is directly related to the protection of your IT equipment (unless of course you have some very expensive imported palm trees in your backyard you have not told us about).

Just to be sure, make sure you buy the equipment in the name of your business, and pay for it directly from the business bank account.