I am a VAT registered sole trader with a flooring company.
I need a decent(ish) camera to take some pics for my website and portfolio.
Can I put it through as expenses and/or claim the VAT back on it?
I am only thinking of an entry level dslr around 500 squids.
Many thanks

And if you have another camera for non-business use - even better.

Don't forget that if the camera is a legitimate asset for VAT purposes, it will also be a legitimate asset for Capital Allowance purposes - and will be eligible for the 100% Annual Investment Allowance (AIA).

You could play it safe and use a ratio of business/pleasure to defuse any suspicion - as they must be used to people buying nice cameras 'for work' when in fact they aren't.

10Mp would be plenty for that. The thing that will make the most difference between 'snap' and something vaguely professional is lighting.

Thank you very much.

Absolutely.

The general principle in whether a cost is allowable as a TRADING expense entirely rests on the "wholly and exclusive" rule.

This means that a businessman has some flexibility in deciding what to spend on his business. For example, he may decide to buy a van for his business when he could have purchased a pick-up. A van might not be as "necessary" as a pick-up (he might already have a pick-up, for example) but the van is still an allowable cost and the relevant tax reliefs will be claimable.

If there is an element of non-business usage associated with the cost, then an attempt must be made to apportion the tax relief claim. This means that only the business element is claimed and therefore that part of the claim that is made in the business is "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of the trade.

The test for EMPLOYEES making tax relief claims is more strict because in that "necessity" is a fundamental requirement for the allowability of the claim i.e. the expense must have been incurred "wholly, exclusively and NECESSARILLY" as part of the job requirement.
For example, an employer suggests that some employees might want to work from home one day a week. One employee volunteers. He then decides he would like to claim tax relief an element of domestic costs as he is working from home.
He cannot do so because it was not a necessary part of his work that he work from home. If he was ORDERED to work from home by his boss, then he COULD make a valid claim.

As for an elk, if you are an elk farmer, then you would have no trouble offsetting the purchase of an elk.

If you normally didn't buy elks but bought one as a publicity stunt (for example) AND you could show HOW it was used for publicity purposes, then you could still claim the cost of the elk.

He might need a decent lens too, especially a wide angle if he wants to get most of the floor into the shot.

+1 - what he says

DAVID

I'm sure there was a famous case where someone was trying to claim that their suit was wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade.

HMRC won by arguing that since you have to wear something for public decency and that something in this case was the suit then it was not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade

That's a facile argument, and only makes sense if he has no other clothes.

I can assure everyone publicly that the suit is only used for work and I don't sit at home wearing it for pleasure or any other purpose. So it just proves (1) the law is an ass (2) bookeeper was right.

The daftest bit is 'Similarly the fact that the clothing was only worn at work was immaterial. There was no necessity to restrict his wearing of it to his working hours.'

To return to the camera example, although the OP only wants to use it for work and it is totally allowable, why do HMRC not argue 'there is no necessity to restrict his using of it to his working hours'?

Clothing seems to be a special case based on some highly faulty case law IMHO.