TV presenters clothing - business expense?

TV presenters clothing - business expense?

Didn't find your answer?

A client of mine had an audition for presenting on TV and wishes to claim for clothes as a business expense. She was unsecessful and did not get the job, would this make a difference?
I understand that usually business clothes are not tax deductable as they can be worn when not working. I am looking for advice on TV presenters clothes as they are in the public domain.
Steven Leather

Replies (11)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By AnonymousUser
24th Nov 2004 16:48

No apology necessary

No offence taken.
That story is all too believable. I have clients who play in orchestras, sometimes in the Albert Hall, sometimes in West End theatres etc. They have funny ideas too.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ACDWebb
22nd Nov 2004 14:12

Probably apocryphal,
but I seem to recall hearing somewhere of a presenter who got away with a claim on a wardrobe used exclusively for TV work because it was all bought a size too small to look good on screen.

That said, a claim for clothes to attend an interview should I think fail

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andymeeson
22nd Nov 2004 12:05

I don't believe they are, Clint
That is to say, I don't believe subbies' specialist clothing is different from a barrister's wig and gown. Neither has any duality of purpose, since they perform a specific, job-related role.

However, in the leading case Mallalieu v Drummond, Anne (now Baroness) Mallalieu was trying to claim for normal clothes (skirts, jackets etc) which had to be black for Court etiquette. She argued that she wouldn't be seen dead wearing black on the streets, and so should be able to claim it as a Sch D cost. The judge told her to take a running jump, essentially, since they were in fact normal street clothes with a clear duality of purpose.

I would imagine that the same would apply to presenters' clothes.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paul Soper
22nd Nov 2004 16:07

Stage clothing is the key
The answers suggesting that ordinary clothing are quite right - since Anne Mallalieu did nobody any favours by suggesting that the whole cost of her black street clothing should be allowable (or nothing at all), and lost - the revenue line is that such clothing is not allowable, although before the case they would usually accept a proportion. Have you noticed how many newsreaders are still wearing the kipper ties they bought in the 1970's?

However if the clothing is stage clothing - one newreader has suits specially tailored which are cut short in the back so the jacket does not ride up when he is sitting down and give the impression of a hunch - and genuinely bought and used for that purpose then like a subbies protective clothing (the emphasis here is on protective) the claim should succeed. Is there any truth in the rumour that John Motson gets relief for the ludicrous sheepskins he wears?

Obviously as the client didn't get the job the source has not yet commenced, but it could still be pre-trading expenditure if the source does commence within 7 years and deducted in the first basis period.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
24th Nov 2004 11:53

Apologies to Phil
Sorry, Phil, I wasn't criticising your suggestion about the Equity list but know of instances where it has been misconstrued. In my former incarnation as a Tax Inspector (forgive me!) I carried out quite a number of investigations into members of Equity who had claimed for everything on the Equity list because they thought they could - such as the scriptwriter who claimed for hairdressing, clothing, dentistry, cinema and theatre tickets, a video recorder, a camcorder, books, magazines, etc etc. The Equity list can be a good aide memoire but can also prove a happy hunting ground for the Revenue!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
22nd Nov 2004 13:04

Anne Mallalieu was indeed told by the judge that there was duality of purpose, the clothes being worn partly for warmth and decency.

Stage and screen performers are however allowed much more leeway in this respect and sometimes are even allowed to claim for dentistry, hair and manicure treatments as well as partial claims for the TV licence, Radio Times sub etc.

Get in touch with the actors union (Equity) for assistance. They publish some useful material.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
24th Nov 2004 10:05

Absolutely right, Mr Monger
As in all things, there is no "one size fits all" solution.

The Equity guide has not been agreed with the Revenue. It is indeed a list of things that some people have agreed in certain circumstances. It is a guide and not a bible.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By NeilW
21st Nov 2004 17:20

Clothes
The reason clothes cannot be claimed is because the purchase is not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. They have a secondary purpose of keeping you warm and decent. So went the definitive case on the subject IIRC.

Of course if your client was wearing a chicken suit or its ilk during the audition then you may have a case.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
21st Nov 2004 18:45

And yet
I have known construction industry subcontractors to be successful in claiming certain dedicated working clothes as a deduction. I am curious to know how these cases are distinguished from a barrister wearing a gown.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
23rd Nov 2004 13:35

Beware the Equity list of expenses
As I understand, the list was drawn up by Equity asking their members to let them know what expenses they had been allowed by their individual tax inspectors. Consequently they ended up with a very mixed bag which took little account of what the individual members did for a living. As an example, a concert pianist mat have been allowed the cost of corrective surgery following an accident that damaged his hand; a TV presenter may have been allowed costs of dentistry and so on. Equity put all of this stuff in their list and sent it out to all of their members. The trouble is that, if you are a camera man or a scriptwriter (who are also in Equity), you cannot claim for corrective surgery or cosmetic dentistry! So, treat the Equity list with care. You need to be mindful of what is necessary for the performance of the client's trade, profession or vocation.

Thanks (0)