What is a uniform for tax purposes please?

What is a uniform for tax purposes please?

Didn't find your answer?

A client have asked me about providing suits for half a dozen staff, and I've said that the suits need to be a uniform, and this can be achieved with something as little as an embroidered logo or similar (I presume such a logo would need to be conspicuously placed, despite being small?).
I quoted the case of the barrister and her black suit, and also made reference to some of the high street banks and their embroidered logos on suits.
The client was fine with this, but said that she knew of a company with around 200 employees who provide each with a dark blue suit (and no logo or embroidery etc), and wasn't the fact that all employees have to wear a dark blue suit a uniform?
It could be that they aren't claiming tax relief on the dark blue suits, but it's unlikely I think!
Is there a definitive guideline on this area please?
David Evans

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By geoffemtacs
13th Apr 2007 08:10

Definitive Guide?
Nope - all there is, is greyness, smoke and mirrors.

When the Revenue was in a post-Mallalieu euphoric haze it issued its directive that clothing which was 'by way of the nature of a uniform' could be claimed, with the intention that it apply to people such as nurses, bus conductors and airline staff. It wasn't meant to cover clothing that was uniform in nature (i.e. standardised). The test I always use is - does it get strange looks from kids whilst shopping in Tescos?

So - dull blue suit issued to staff should be a benefit and an employee attempting to claim for the purchase of a suit would not be able to claim for its purchase. But then these decisions are made locally and often not made at all by the Revenue. The claim is probably made and not challenged. Even when challenged, the average Inspector has his own personal interpretation. o-one would care sufficiently or be as daft as Anne Mallalieu was in making a fuss in the first place.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
13th Apr 2007 13:27

Embroidered or woven...
...is the usual test on the basis that the clothing is obviously for work if the logo is woven in. Protective clothing also gives rise to no benefit (usually).

However, questions of greying borders;
Tabards worn by cleaners, worn when thet are finishing at the evening and, heaven forbid, when they are at home - is that a benefit or not?

Bright yellow safety jackets worn on cosntruction and other outdoor sites but worn when travelling to and from work or when out at the weekend - is that a benefit or not?

Smart blazer worn by a holiday rep with the company's badge on the pocket stitched on - is that a benefit or not?

The head waiters morning suit - is that a benefit or not?

I've discussed all of them with HMRC. The blazer was the hardest. If the badge was removed there was a mark where the badge had been and the colour of the blazer was such that I would not have worn it. We took the safe option of weaving the logo into the blazer. As the previous answer indicated, there is no hard and fast rule and the nearer you get to the Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury (other supermarkets are available) test, the more likely there is to be no benefit.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thehaggis
13th Apr 2007 18:32

Company keeps ownership
If the company buys the clothes and lets the employee have use of them, but does not transfer ownership, the tax charge is 20% of the market value. The MV (what would it fetch if sold on the open market) of an item of clothing with the company's logo on it is likely to be trivial. And 20% of trivial is not very much at all.

Thanks (0)