Reply to: Can I claim my glasses as expenses ?

[oxtailsoup]

Glasses

You can get your limited company to pay for glasses as long as the receipt says 'for VDU use'.

[Bluebird]

should be fine then, just bog standard business expense.

[TheFaQQer]

I would think that company branded stuff would be ok, as the company would purchase and then provide for the staff to use.

However, I would have thought that a company branded uniform would cost more than a "standard" item, and the savings would be very marginal if at all - and you'd have to wear it at a client site...

Could be funny though if you've incorporated with a funny company name like "I'm outside IR35 so there Ltd"

It's not designed as a cost saving - more that she needs some funky t-shirts to advertise the company with when she does events, so if she can claim them against the company then she will.

[Bluebird]

I would think that company branded stuff would be ok, as the company would purchase and then provide for the staff to use.

However, I would have thought that a company branded uniform would cost more than a "standard" item, and the savings would be very marginal if at all - and you'd have to wear it at a client site...

Could be funny though if you've incorporated with a funny company name like "I'm outside IR35 so there Ltd"

[TheFaQQer]

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.

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...)

What about if they were company branded?

My wife's company has just bought some branded T-shirts and stuff, for staff use. Can they be claimed as expenses?

If they were being given out as promotional material, then they would be OK, but what if they were just being given to staff to wear?

[Sysman]

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

You are right. I followed this one too, and remember thinking that if a barrister and a female one at that couldn't win, there was no chance for me.

[Old Greg]

And thou shalt be blighted by the curses of the Great Prophet (or Profit) El Ron... until the end of thy days... much weeping and gnashing of teeth will befall thee.

Or something...

We all know you're in league with Xenu, Zeity.

[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.

[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.

[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...)

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[DimPrawn]

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

HTH