TAX FEATURE: Can clothing ever be an allowable expense against trading income? By Nichola Ross Martin

It was long before I started at the Bar. However, I suspect that Miss Mallalieu was really a stooge of the profession rather than someone determined to become famous by having a tax case named after her.

I certainly cannot imagine a junior criminal practitioner being willing to fund the case all the way to the Lords.

I seriously think Ann Mallalieu needs a good, if metaphorical slap. She pushed a reaonably good argument to a House of Lords decision presumably because she was in the profession and fancied having the argument. Why on earth she didn't come to some kind of compromise deal with the Revenue I don't know. Now we are left with the case being used all the time.

As a firm we specialise in dealing with musicians and actors of all kinds, so it features in nearly every enquiry which we have. The truth that these reveal are that the Revenue have no consistency. And I can't really blame them. As Nichola mentions, the same posh suit can be purchased by interviewer and interviewee and be claimed by one but not the other.

So a claim for the a pair of the latest Air Nikes could be valid as a piece of hip stage clothing. A lot of musicians involved in the West End have to wear 'black pit clothing' which usually comprises black jeans, long sleeved black jumpers/Tshirts etc. Plenty of duality going on here, but this proves to be acceptable to some Inspectors.

On the other hand some Inspectors will oppose the purchase of Dinner Jackets, Tails, cummerbunds and the most appalling long floral dresses that are well within the scope of the IM pages mentioned.

The difficulty for the Inspectors is that so much of this goes to the mental intent at the time of purchase (as with the posh frock for an awards do) that becomes nigh on impossible to prove one way or the other.

The amounts involved are relatively small and the right solution is to agree some kind of concession with the Revenue - it serves no-one greatly to pursue such things to the death as Ms Mallalieu would have found had she just rung her Inspector up and said "how about half?"

claim included expenditure on items such as black tights as well so I have always supposed that she was not prepared to compromise in any way.

Some time ago, I wrote a deliberately provocative article in Taxation suggesting that capital allowances might be available for work clothes (with restrictions for the private element).

Whilst most people think of Miss (now Baroness) Mallalieu and conclude that any claim would be pointless, it should be remembered that Miss Mallalieu's claim concerned a trading deduction.

Capital allowances are available for assets used only partly for the purposes of a qualifying activity. It is also noteworthy that the HMRC CA manuals do not explicitly preclude such a claim.

The problem is whether clothes constitute "plant or machinery". However, in the CA context, this has been extended to the tools of a person's trade (including books). Arguably, any clothes worn because of the requirements of the job should similarly qualify.