Share this content

Can a Dog be capitilised

My client is a gamekeeper working on various estates. He purchased a working cocker, purely for the purpose of managing the estates.

Presumably this would be a capital expenditure, the same as if you were buying a piece of equipment for work purposes!


Please login or register to join the discussion.

The question is

exactly what function does the dog perform? Sheepdogs, for instance, are OK because they clearly have a working function on the farm. I've yet to see a dog manage an estate!

Thanks (0)

gamekeeper's dog

Do you know what a 'gamekeeper' does??

Yes , capitlaise and claim its upkeep.

Thanks (0)

Gamekeepers Dog

sue scherzo wrote:

Do you know what a 'gamekeeper' does??

Yes , capitlaise and claim its upkeep.


Yes and this can be quite varied not just food


Vets Bills

and the other section that is often missed

Magazine Subscriptions and Professional Fees for Gamekeeping Associations etc


On the reverse side HMRC would expect to see an amount declared for Tips

One of the more interesting tax returns I do




Thanks (0)

I asked a similar question some time ago

Funnily enough I was just doing the accounts for this client last week - no, not really funny, she always leaves it until the last week of January, but I cave capitalised her dog and claimed capital allowances.

Thanks (0)

Can it have its own bank account?

Enquiring minds.

Thanks (0)

BKD - A dog ...

... is one of the most essential pieces of equipment a game-keeper has, along with his shot-gun.

It's primarily used for "dogging in" (please no school boy comments!) the birds each evening, that is rounding them up from where they have strayed in their search of food during the day and returning them to the relative safety of their pens in the evening.

They will also be used in finding and flushing game on shoot days as well as retrieving shot game, particularly runners (wounded birds) and difficult retrieves, the picker-ups, beaters and the guns' dogs dealing with the marked and easier blind retrieves..

They will also be used extensively in vermin control, in the finding, flushing and retrieving of such. 

A game-keeper with no dog would be hard pressed to fulfil his duties, and many have two, one trained for hunting and one for retrieving.

For those ignorant in such matters, managing an estate in this context means ensuring vermin (primarily foxes, squirrels, weasels, stoats, rats and corvids) are kept under control (by shooting, trapping, snaring and poison) whilst avoiding harm to protected species, primarily raptors and badgers, and that the land is managed properly so the birds have suitable habitat in which to thrive (coppicing trees, keeping rides clear of overhanging branches, and for shoots on arable land liaising with the farmer on the timing on sowing and the type of cover crop required, etc.) and that the birds are kept safe and well by supplying grain; fresh water; and medicine so there is a good supply of fit and healthy birds for shoot days. All of which is tightly regulated, poisons have to be carefully used to avoid protected species being killed, traps and snares have to be checked regularly, and those using live decoys such as Larsen traps have very stringent rules as to their deployment.

On top of all this the estate has to be guarded against poachers, who these days are highly organised and well armed. The modern poacher is far from the romantic figure in novels stealing the odd pheasant or rabbit to feed his impoverished family. The modern poacher gangs will take thousand of birds in one go, and indiscriminately kill deer using inappropriate firearms.

On estates offering deer stalking the dog may also be used to track deer for hunting and find the fallen deer once the shot has been taken (as a deer can travel hundreds of yards before falling from a fatal shot. This is important as if the carcass is not found and gralloched quickly the meat will be tainted and unusable. 

Here is a clip of the sort of work a spaniel will do, this is one of the top kennels for gundogs, my springer is woefully short of this standard, but we try!


Just found this if you want to see top cockers in action in last years national championship

Thanks (0)

Thank you BKD.

It is indeed used for retrieving, flushing pheasants and vermin control and you are right my gamekeeper cannot do his job without both his dogs.

You have answered my question.


Thanks (0)

I think you mean OGA,

JuliaKing wrote:

Thank you BKD.

It is indeed used for retrieving, flushing pheasants and vermin control and you are right my gamekeeper cannot do his job without both his dogs.

You have answered my question.


BKD proclaimed his ignorance of these matters, or were you thanking him for allowing me a platform :o) !

If you're client is in the home counties south or west of London I would be more than happy to help if he want's a hand with dogging in or needs a extra beater next season - purely for pleasure, I am a poacher of neither game nor client!


Thanks (0)

Thank you Old Greying Accountant!

Old Greying Accountant, my profuse apologies, it was you I meant to have thanked in my, ' thank you' post, I picked up the heading of your comment rather than your name. That'll teach me to be rushing at the last minute with tax returns.Hope you will forgive me.


Thanks (0)

just out of curiosity

Is the dog called 'Jarvis'?

Thanks (0)

I met a Springer Spaniel ...

... called Jerry once, and (unfortunately not 12 years ago) a Cocker Spaniel called Jarvis, but his owners were very common people! 


Thanks (0)

Presumably . . .

 . . . the dog in question is not Fenton!


Thanks (0)

what a great question!

I know my answer is oof no assistance at all but saw the title and giggled a lot (I have no understanding of the relevant trades where such capitalisatio is a necessity so please igore my ignorance)

I am going to ask my two dogs if they want to be capitalised (and hope they don't hear that as castrated!)

Roll on Wednesday!


Thanks (0)

OGA's answer

admirably demonstrates that there is always more to most subjects than meets the eye!  Without wishing to stir up a hornets' nest the same applies to the foxhunting debate.

Most of the antis are townies with no knowledge whatsoever of how the countryside works.  As a townie with farmer family freinds from birth and who was married to a farmer's daughter for fifteen years I quickly learned that the countryside is a living organism with which one tampers at ones peril!

Thanks (0)

Thanks Richard

Richard Willis wrote:

admirably demonstrates that there is always more to most subjects than meets the eye!  Without wishing to stir up a hornets' nest the same applies to the foxhunting debate.

Most of the antis are townies with no knowledge whatsoever of how the countryside works.  As a townie with farmer family freinds from birth and who was married to a farmer's daughter for fifteen years I quickly learned that the countryside is a living organism with which one tampers at ones peril!

What many of the anti's fail to grasp is that without field sports there would be no countryside as we know it, just an impenetrable jungle of bracken and brambles.

Even apparently barren land such as moors benefit. Bradford Council  reversed a 10 year ban on grouse shooting on Ilkley Moor as the land deteriorated so badly without proper management, and the grouse themselves were at great risk of extinction through disease attributed to over population. The over looked fact is that managment of land for the benefit of game species has a knock on benefit for all species, even predator ones, as there is far less competition for food, so those that survive will be healthier and in better condition. I  personally feel a quick death from a keepers bullet has to be better than a long slow one from starvation or disease.

Ironically, shooting estates are far better for biodiversity than any of those run by aniaml charities, the RSPB reserves being a case in point. It is all about balance and without human intervention the balance is lost. What is more cruel to wildlife than shooting and pest control are intensive modern farming techniques which deprive animals of habitat and food (via insecticides). Far better a sustainable balnce between the needs of humans and animals, as championed by Prince Charles, and one of my conservation heroes, Robin Page and his Countryside Restoration Trust.

It is ironic that shooters and field sport participants do far more active conservation than the hand wringing bunny huggers, who through their own ignorance do more harm than good when they actually go into the countryside by disturbing the wildlife, their nest sites and feeding grounds. The biggest joke is the League Against Cruel Sports who have their own deer sanctuary full of diseased and starving deer, brought about by over population and lack of management. The other amusing bunch are the Animal Liberation Front who spend their lives breaking down fences and releasing animals from a safe a protected environment to sure and brutal death in a wild they are not equipped for.

I am sure these people mean well, but I would rather eat a pheasant that has lived a free and natural life in the wild, and has had a sporting chance at survival, than a chicken raised in an intensive system with no chance at all, and if you have ever seen how McDonalds rear their chickens you will know what I mean!

IMHO the only anti with any credence is a vegan. My own views are that I am happier with hunting for the table rather than sport, but, I know through hands on experience that game animals have a far better existence than most farmed animals with the added bonus of being far better for you as they are leaner and less exposed to drugs, chemicals and genetic manipulation.

Thanks (1)

Mine's a labrador, but...

Just wondering if your keeper is provided with free accommodation, and if he is taxed on the benefit.

I succeeded some time ago in persuading HMRC that a keeper's cottage met the "customary" test in section 99 (2) ITEPA 2003 and could therefore be exempt from tax if he also passed the "better performance" test, but I notice they have failed to amend EIM11352 to reflect this.

Of course, if he pays rent for it, one could do a salary sacrifice to save some tax/NIC.

The saddest Post Balance Sheet Event I ever saw in a set of accounts was "The horse has since died"....

Thanks (0)

Kill and Eat

We do seem rather a long way from capital allowances, but as another field sports enthusiast, I just wanted to make the point that if you want to eat, you have to kill, or pay someone to do the killing for you.

Veggies and vegans are not excluded from this, because someone has to kill the pests that would otherwise eat or destroy the vegetables that comprise their uninteresting diets.

Thanks (0)

I think a true vegan ...

... would not kill the pests, but would plant complientary crops, and sufficient that you can afford to loose a few. For example, you plant marigolds between your peas as the slugs and blackfly are attracted to those in preference.

The problem I have always had with this is if say you plant a companion crop to attract for instance ladybirds, so they eat the aphids on your main crop, you are still killing the aphids!

I do feel that humans have canine teeth and therefore are designed to be omivorous although I think a lot of the health and obesity issues these days are due to an imbalance between meat and veg on the side of the meat.

Thanks (0)



a mightly impressive couple of posts! 

you are wasted sitting in an office.


Thanks (0)

Dogs as business assets

Until my old dog died, I used to put all his upkeep through the books as "security" and informed HMRC that I was doing that ... the area I had my small accountancy office in started off OK, but gradually went downhill (oh no! was I to blame???), and since we accountants store all sorts of confidential data on our clients it was vital that they had some sort of assurance as to the safekeeping of that data. Despite me putting what I was doing in bold UPPERCASE in the annual letter accompanying my company tax returns, not once was this queried.

Let's face it, the last thing I wanted was my clients to suspect that their precious bookkeeping records might be at risk of being nibbled by a gang of vermin! Although I'm still of the opinion that a good ravaging by a gang of pack rats would have majorly improved some of the bookkeeping records I had to look at.

Interestingly my wife once had her life saved by her pet dog rushing downstairs in the middle of the night to bark at intruders who were in the middle of jemmying out her windows in order to get at the musical instruments her then-boyfriend owned (he played in a jazz band) ... the police were quite clear that, if the prospective burglars had broken in and been disturbed by her or her boyfriend, both she and her boyfriend would surely have been for the chop (their next door neighbour in a totally different incident had her head hacked off!).

Oh, the good old days!

Thanks (0)

Man's best friend

My parents had a pub and I am sure they would have claimed the family Boxer dog's upkeep.

One night the pub was burgled, and the next morning Bill the Boxer, who had not made a sound, was peacefully asleep on his dog bed in the bar, cuddling the wrapping paper from a chocolate bar.

Of course, this could not happen today since the 2010 Bribery Act.

Thanks (0)


*ponders the depreciation policy for a dog*

Tail, year 1, back leg left, year 2...


Great stories - cheered my afternoon up - apart from the horse dying of course... that was very sad  :O(

Thanks (0)

What about the costs of feeding, vet fees, etc?

If you have a dog that is a business asset (e.g. gamekeeper's spaniel, shepherd's collie), presumably the costs of feeding, vet fees etc would be tax-deductible expenses, as well as the cost of the animal being an asset, please?

Like the running costs of a car can be claimed as well as its cost?



P.S. OGA - as the daughter of a lifelong antique shotgun enthusiast, I salute you!

Thanks (0)

I am of the opinion that yes they can


Thanks (1)

Yes ...

... claim the "running" costs - the dog is a 'keepers tools, the vets bill and food are the maintenance costs.

I am apoplectic at the moment though.

I have just finished watching the update to pedigree dogs exposed. 

I am sickened by the selfish greed of a significant and powerful mass of breeders who dictate to the Kennel Club purely so they can make money from stud fees of dogs that just pass on hereditary and inbred abnormalities and defects.

I think the KC has had long enough to put its house in order but there are too many conflicts of interests and so it has to submit to statutory regulation,  or dog shows that are judged on aestetics should be banned.

If the KC is to register dogs, it should be mandatory that they are screened for known problems on a breed by breed basis, and any litters from parents where the coefficient of inbreding score is greater than a set amount will not be registered. Also, known carriers of gentic health problems should be barred from competing.

The restrictions on registering should be lifted when genes are refreshed by say introducing another breed to strengthen blood lines as the KC amazingly but commendably did with Dalmations.

The show dog variants of breeds are generally unfit for purpose in terms of temperment and the ability to to the job they were bred for.

I cringe at the sight of show English Springer Spaniels (being a working ESS devotee). These creatures couldn't find a pheasant if you stuck it up its nostrils, and wouldn't have the stamina fo a single beat, let alone a day in the field!

Contrast this

with this

And don't get me started on Labradors, the lardy lumps that parade at Crufts and win the plaudits from the judges bring me close to tears, just look at this KC champion:

 compared to a typical working lab

You will see why!

These are bad enough, but when you look at the pain and discomfort and premature death inflicted on King Charles Spaniels, Boxers. Pugs and Bulldogs - even Sharpeis and Mastiffs - they pale into insignificance, all done by so called dog lovers!

There are a vocal minority of scrupulous breeders, who do their best to stand up for their breeds and spend copious amounts of time researching matings to ensure a wide and healthy spread of genes, but they get ostracised and marginalised by those who care more for the money than they do for the animal, with dogs carrying serious defects being used to sire hundreds of litters.

From that, one of the key reforms should be that a dog should only be allowed to sire a limited number of litters that can be registered. As shown in the BBC program, one "Champion" boxer carrying serious kidney defects sired over 600 litters, the reason is when a dog is made champion, everyone wants that in their kennels bloodline, and by the time the problems becomes manifest the damage is done. So, if matings were limited, and screening mandatory the breeds would benefit, and as I said earlier, as the KC relies on the support of the breeders it is not impartial and cannot be relied upon to take the necessary action.

Thanks (0)