Cost of clothing

Posted on 03 May 2010 by Comments (4)

We all need to wear clothes for work, whether we opt for jeans and shirts, smart suits, or, as Liz Jackson put it, whether we “stumble out of bed and work in... pyjamas”.

The question is, is tax relief available on the cost of that clothing?

And the answer... as so often with tax... is “It depends”!

What does it depend on?

Well, mainly, what the clothing is, and why it was bought.

Protective clothing

Working on a building site, or railway line, and need protective clothing such as overalls, steel toe-capped boots, a helmet, or a high-visibility jacket?

Absolutely fine to claim tax relief on that, and if you’re an employee and your employer buys it for you, there’s no taxable benefit.

Uniform

The same applies to some uniforms.

HM Revenue’s description is “a recognisable uniform that shows you’ve got a certain sort of job - like a nurse’s or police uniform”.

Tax relief is available on the cost of those, too.

Flat rate deductions for certain trades

If you have to buy specialist tools or clothing, and you’re in certain trades, then rather than claiming tax relief on the actual cost of the tools or clothes you bought, you can claim a flat rate annual deduction to allow for that spend. You can’t have both though. It’s either what you actually spent, or the flat rate deduction.

Here’s the table of industries, occupations and their annual deductions.

“Ordinary” clothing: “everyday wardrobe”.

But there’s no tax relief available for “ordinary clothing” that can be worn for work or elsewhere, if that clothing is part of your “everyday wardrobe”.

So if you buy a pair of pyjamas, and wear them when you’re working from home but also when you’re in bed at night, you can’t claim tax relief.

That also holds true for more “conventional” work clothing. There was a headline case where a computer engineer, required to wear a suit and tie for work, tried to claim tax relief on the cost of that suit and tie - and wasn’t allowed to.

The computer engineer, Mr Hillyer, could have worn that suit and tie elsewhere, e.g. to go shopping at Tesco, or to go to the theatre with his wife, or to a Rotary dinner, etc.

HM Revenue say that “if the clothing might suitably be worn as part of a hypothetical person’s ‘everyday’ wardrobe”, no tax relief is available.

Where the “everyday wardrobe” does not apply: actors and other entertainers

Actors and other entertainers often have to buy costumes for a part. In fact we've just had a support query from one of our users who's a Michael Jackson impersonator. He wanted to know if he could claim tax relief on his outfits.

The answer is yes.

Tax relief is available on those costumes, even if they could afterwards be worn as ordinary daytime clothing (which you'd have to assume the Michael Jackson costumes would not be - we didn't ask).

HM Revenue make this clear and give an example of a self-employed television interviewer who may claim for the cost of his lounge suit worn on TV, because that’s part of his “costume”, while the architect he’s interviewing, who’s wearing an identical suit, couldn’t claim tax relief on the cost of his suit because it’s part of his “everyday wardrobe”!

So like pretty well everything else connected with tax;

  • it’s not straightforward
  • this article can't replace professional advice relating to your own circumstances
  • and if in doubt, ask!

 

Over to you...

Charles Verrier, Tue May 04, 2010
I always feel that that barrister (Ann Mallalieu) got a raw deal when her famous claim for her black work clothes was turned down.

She lost because the court ruled she would have needed clothes for warmth and modesty regardless of her job, which seemed a bit harsh, and an argument that could equally be applied to policemen, and self-employed TV interviewers.
Mike Wilson, Tue May 04, 2010
I feel the same way as Charles.

If you don't normally wear certain clothes (e.g. suits) and you purchase these clothes for purely only use in the course of your business then surely it has passed the test of being "wholly and necessarily incurred"? Furthermore there is alternative casual clothing that would work for warmth and modesty which clearly wouldn't have been acceptable in the course of her business.

And if HMRC wants to be consistent, then they shouldn't allow the Michael Jackson impersonator, nor the "lounge suit guy" their expensed attire either.

I think the moral of the story is: If you claim it, be prepared to go to court to defend it!
Stuart Jones, Tue May 04, 2010
Mike, I would add a a couple of words to your final sentence "and lose"! Sian williams did http://www.3caonline.com/?p=348
Mike Wilson, Tue May 04, 2010
@Stuart Jones - indeed!

It's worrying in many ways, I wonder how many businesses in the UK can claim that every item on their accounts is correctly accounted for using not just the correct accounting categories and rates but those most appropriate for their businesses.
(Comments closed)

Recent Posts

Twitter Love

  • Thanks to @freeagent I will never need to use the crappy HMRC payroll software come April.

  • all sorted and ready for PAYE RTI thanks to @freeagent awesomeness.

  • The latest reason why I continue to love @freeagent http://t.co/nfYqVJDfa4 HMRC chucks a stress out at businesses, FreeAgent bats it away!

  • Those folks @freeagent do it right. The confirmation mail includes important information: http://t.co/HCHIvgjpI0

  • @NickClement @freeagent its excellent for invoicing, very flexible & easy - esp billable time by task from timeslips-capture the revenue!

Follow:

Escape spreadsheet hell with FreeAgent.

Try FreeAgent for Free