Thx
Thanks everyone for your postings. So looks like I should carry on as before and not make a claim.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Suits
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Suits"
Collapse
-
The lawyer was a barrister and the judge was the Law Lords.Originally posted by IR35 Avoider View PostThe 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.
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:
That link also gives all the details of the barrister's case.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.
Mind you, if you're a celebrity, the rules are far more lax.
Leave a comment:
-
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.Last edited by IR35 Avoider; 6 December 2009, 19:42.
Leave a comment:
-
Change your company name to your initials - put those intials on your business work shirts - nice cuff monogram.
Hey presto!
Company uniform.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostI 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.Yeah, they'll never see through that. You might as well just lie and save the printing costs.Originally posted by Lumiere View PostBut 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
Leave a comment:
-
NHS professionals have a special case - however, your doctor friend does not fall into that case:Originally posted by Naaarwich View PostI 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 ?
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.Originally posted by HMRCWhere the clothing is suitable for general everyday wear (whether or not it is in fact so worn) cash allowances towards its purchase are taxable.
Leave a comment:
-
Many years ago when I was a permie, all the blokes were given a company tie and the ladies a company scarf.
A few months later we each got a letter saying how much extra tax we would each have to pay for our benefit in kind.
And it was a crap nylon tie that wouldn't hang straight.
Leave a comment:
-
It's your civic duty to shop the good Dr. to Hector.Originally posted by Naaarwich View PostI 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 ?
Leave a comment:
-
But it does not actually say where the logotype should be - inside/outside, does it ?Originally posted by d000hg View PostI seem to remember hearing/reading that if you have clothes made for work with your company logo on .. I think such a thing would spoil the look of your suit though.
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
Leave a comment:
-
Yes - or, for example, if you needed a high visibility vest.Originally posted by d000hg View PostI 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.
There is a case of a QC claiming that she only needed the gown and wig (etc.) for work and therefore they were a valid business expense, but she lost because she could were them outside work.
So, chances of getting away with buying a suit are non-existent, as the good doctor will find out if he is ever investigated.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Nope, not allowed, I did ask my accountant and he generally doesn't recommend it as there has been a not so recent case of a barrister taken to task by hector for claiming for his wig and gown.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- IT contractor demand defied seasonal slump in December 2025 Today 07:10
- Five tax return hacks for contractors as Jan 31st looms Yesterday 07:45
- How to land a temporary technology job in 2026 Jan 9 07:01
- Spring Forecast 2026 ‘won’t put up taxes on contractors’ Jan 8 07:26
- Six things coming to contractors in 2026: a year of change, caution and (maybe) opportunity Jan 7 06:24
- Umbrella companies, beware JSL tunnel vision now that the Employment Rights Act is law Jan 6 06:11
- 26 predictions for UK IT contracting in 2026 Jan 5 07:17
- How salary sacrifice pension changes will hit contractors Dec 24 07:48
- All the big IR35/employment status cases of 2025: ranked Dec 23 08:55
- Why IT contractors are (understandably) fed up with recruitment agencies Dec 22 13:57

Leave a comment: