Suits as a business expense

[steviebee]

We’ve recently supplied the guys in our print factory with smart “work clothes” – overalls, t-shirts, etc. The factory looks more efficient and we don’t have a bunch of print minders moaning about mucking up their own clobber.

This has been supplied at a cost to the company but is tax deductible.

Now, in order to do my job, I need a suit – or at the very least, “smart” attire. I need this for no other reason than to do my job.

So, why is it that I cannot claim this as a legitimate business expense?

[touching cloth]

Someone may be able to correct me here but I have a feeling it is to do with being able to use said clothing elsewhere i.e. privately. If your suits were branded with company logo for instance then they can be classified as a uniform and then become deductable. Unbranded they just become normal clothing and hence not.

I think.

[mmm-five]

So if I am to provide overalls for the job I'd have to ensure the staff don't wear them when doing DIY on their car etc. - as this would be personal use and would not be deductable?

I don't wear a suit anywhere but at work - with one or two exceptions (weddings or funerals when I wouldn't wear a 'work suit')!

I suppose if you could show that they 'work wear' was kept on the company premises you could (just about) get away with it.

[justinp1]

touching cloth said:

Someone may be able to correct me here but I have a feeling it is to do with being able to use said clothing elsewhere i.e. privately. If your suits were branded with company logo for instance then they can be classified as a uniform and then become deductable. Unbranded they just become normal clothing and hence not.

I think.

That is correct. You need to prove that you have to have this clothing in order to do the work. So protective clothing is a no-brainer.

If you had a particular type suit made up for a group of people you may be able to get away with this by way it is a uniform - however this is probably not serving the same purpose as what was intended.

[deva link]

mmm-five said:

I don't wear a suit anywhere but at work - with one or two exceptions (weddings or funerals when I wouldn't wear a 'work suit')!

It's the availability for private use that bu88ers these things up - bit like company car tax and people complaining they never use their cars privately. If it's available, then it's a taxable benefit.

I guess that work-wear should only be worn in the workplace.

[JagLover]

As an employee you can only claim for expenses "exclusively & necessary" for your job. Hence a suit, which can be worn for other occasions, is not a tax deductible expense. While a professional subscription is.

[jamesw2000]

your employees can also now claim a £45 a year (may be £60, not sure) tax allowance aswell for expenses related to washing their uniforms, provided that you do not provide not provide washing facilities at work.

[JagLover]

deva link said:

- bit like company car tax and people complaining they never use their cars privately. If it's available, then it's a taxable benefit.

From what I remember from my studies if you can prove there is no perosonal useage whatsoever of a company car than there will be no BIK, and I believe the company can also claim Vat on the purchase of the car.

But in order to comply with this you have to keep the car at the company's premises and only drive it on company business during the day. Your daily Commute is not regarded as business mileage by the IR.

[rustybin]

I seem to remember my accountant telling me that the suit claim didn't work as it had a dual function. The test case was apparently a lady barrister who stated that she needed her suits only because she was at work. The judge found that the suit though presenting an appropriate appearance for her proffession also had the function of protecting her modesty, a task for which some clothing would have been required that she would otherwise have paid for. Thus the expenditure was not solely incurred for the purposes of work as some expenditure would still have been required on her part and thus could not be regarded as a business expense. Could be wrong but...

[deva link]

JagLover said:

But in order to comply with this you have to keep the car at the company's premises and only drive it on company business during the day. Your daily Commute is not regarded as business mileage by the IR.

You don't *have* to keep it on the company premises but it's easier to claim non-private use if you do that. If you're officially home based (like a field based salesman or service engineer) then there's no commuting anyway.

[Lurking Lawyer]

rustybin said:

I seem to remember my accountant telling me that the suit claim didn't work as it had a dual function. The test case was apparently a lady barrister who stated that she needed her suits only because she was at work.

Mallalieu -v- Drummond - I remember that one from university. God knows why though!

[mattyboy101]

rustybin said:

I seem to remember my accountant telling me that the suit claim didn't work as it had a dual function. The test case was apparently a lady barrister who stated that she needed her suits only because she was at work. The judge found that the suit though presenting an appropriate appearance for her proffession also had the function of protecting her modesty, a task for which some clothing would have been required that she would otherwise have paid for. Thus the expenditure was not solely incurred for the purposes of work as some expenditure would still have been required on her part and thus could not be regarded as a business expense. Could be wrong but...

Could the same not be argued for any form of clothing, even those allowed as a legitimate expense?

[pugwash4x4]

wholly and necessarily

the suit isn't wholly for work, it's also for private time and personal reasons

not even i try this one on the tax man

[Leftie]

I met a guy who was selling logo workwear at an exhibition recently and raised this question with him.


I knew that suits with a logo on might be construed as wholly and necesary. He said that some NHS trusts had a 'uniform' suit with the NHS trust name on the inside lining, on safety grounds that staff shouldn't be identified outside work in lunchtimes or on their way to/from work as trust employees. Seemed a bit thin to me.

I have bought a set of 3 shirts and a pair of trousers for £50 a few years ago when I was doing a particular 2/3 day job on a regular basis that meant 16 hour days, during which I had to stay smart. The shirts were non-iron and didn't crease easily, and the trousers had a higher than usual lycra content so that I could stay smart throughout the day as I was sitting most of the time and it got very creased. I also bought an 'emergency' pair of trousers and a shirt from a late night Tesco because I was 200 miles from home when I realised I hadn't picked my suit up and the alternative was jeans to a business meeting. I guess I will hav to argue the case if HMRC do an inspection.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

deva link said:

If you're officially home based (like a field based salesman or service engineer) then there's no commuting anyway.

Unless you spen 40% of your time somewhere, in which case your trip to that place is private mileage.

[deva link]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

deva link said:

If you're officially home based (like a field based salesman or service engineer) then there's no commuting anyway.

Unless you spen 40% of your time somewhere, in which case your trip to that place is private mileage.

I've never heard that before, but anyway I think that driving across the landing to my home office (spare bedroom) would be a bit OTT.

(I still listen intently to the traffic news on the radio - no idea why I do that )

[justinp1]

deva link said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

deva link said:

If you're officially home based (like a field based salesman or service engineer) then there's no commuting anyway.

Unless you spen 40% of your time somewhere, in which case your trip to that place is private mileage.

I've never heard that before, but anyway I think that driving across the landing to my home office (spare bedroom) would be a bit OTT.

(I still listen intently to the traffic news on the radio - no idea why I do that )

I think that is becasue that they are making out that if you drive to the same place often it is technically commuting.

Very interested though if Deva Link or 2 sMoKiN bArReLs (or anyone else) knows - I also work from home and would be looking to get a second car which would only be used for business - do you have confirmation from the taxman that this would be 'kosher'.

The only other case I know of is that someone bought a Lambo as a company car and they went apes***. This was even despite the fact that it was not parked at his home address and in a lock up somewhere else.

Would they really allow the 100% company use - ie no company car tax if you work from home and the car is on your drive?

[deva link]

justinp1 said:

Would they really allow the 100% company use - ie no company car tax if you work from home and the car is on your drive?

I think this is trickier if you're an owner / director, but see:
www.hmrc.gov.uk/cars/company-cars-factsheet.pdf

[Eric Mc]

Also depends on if you are running your business as a sole trader or a limited company.

[deva link]

Eric Mc said:

Also depends on if you are running your business as a sole trader or a limited company.

Yep - I made (another) assumption though, as justimp1 states in his profile that his occupation is Director.
This article has some relevant info: (it's about VAT - but it's the same outfit now - and it mentions the Lambo case, which was a sole trader:
www.taxationweb.co.uk/articles/article.php?id=348


I do know somebody that actually did this but it was a good few years ago, and he was an 'ordinary' employee. His company confirmed to the Revenue that he didn't use the car privately. I think that these days the cars mere availability for private use would invoke the charge.