Share this content

Self employed - allowable expenses

Tooth implant as a business expense

Didn't find your answer?

Hello

My potentioal clien asked me the following question: "I had to have an infected tooth removed earlier this year and I would like to have an implant to replace it. This would be of huge benefit to my extras career path as currently I cannot smile widely without the huge gap where my molar once was being in clear view. Is it reasonable to put the cost of this treatment through my business?"

I think she can't take it as a business expense, for a start there are much chiper options to close a tooth gup.

Can anyone advise, please.

Many thanks

 

Replies (39)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

RLI
By lionofludesch
11th Aug 2017 10:25

It's not impossible. You just have to show that expenditure on the tooth was wholly for business purposes.

There was a case where the taxpayer has some procedure or other done privately. The NHS process would have been adequate so it was decided that the private procedure waswholly for business. Can't remember the details and haven't time to look it up at the moment. Maybe later.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
11th Aug 2017 10:30

You're talking about Parsons.

Are you suggesting that this tooth, if it benefits the trade, will only benefit a couple of periods, when you refer to the wholly and exclusively test for revenue expenditure?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
RLI
By lionofludesch
11th Aug 2017 10:55

No. I said it was possible. Not likely.

Much depends upon upon whose desk it drops.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
11th Aug 2017 11:07

You haven't answered the question I asked.

Do you think it's revenue in nature (benefitting just one or two periods), or do you think its capital (benefitting three or more periods).

In the latter case the wholly and exclusively rule doesn't apply and you'r considering the proportion of business use to total use.

IMO the advice to the client is "stop being a curt".

Thanks (1)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
RLI
By lionofludesch
11th Aug 2017 11:14

I dunno, Portia. I'm not a dentist. How long do these tooth implants last ?

If you're implying more than two years, you're probably right.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By possep
11th Aug 2017 10:30

Yes, if for instance they are a TV presenter or in the public eye etc. I too recall the case mentioned by By lionofludesch

Thanks (0)
The triggle is a distant cousin of the squonk (pictured)
By Triggle
11th Aug 2017 10:54

There is an example similar to this at BIM50160

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim50160

I don't think it's a tax case - just a made up illustration by HMRC. Notice that it is in the section referring to performing artists.

I think for mere plebs the expense will be caught by duality of purpose and be deemed not wholly and exclusively for the trade and, therefore, not allowable. It is impossible to separate any private benefit from any business benefit as they will always occur simultaneously.

What about an argument for capitalising it? The tooth implant has an expected economic life of more that two years and the wholly and exclusively principle does not not apply to capital expenditure. You could then claim AIA on it. Or is this just taking the pee?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Triggle:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
11th Aug 2017 11:09

The radio presenter moving into TV is a real case. It was an old special commissioners case. In my view it was wrongly decided, because they failed to identify that they were dealing with capital expenditure. Why HMRC include it in their manual, I cannot understand.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andy.partridge
11th Aug 2017 11:09

Turn the problem into an opportunity. Your client could specialise in 'toothless simpleton' roles. There will always be a demand.

Thanks (2)
Replying to andy.partridge:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
11th Aug 2017 11:10

But we wouldn't want anybody else stealing any of your thunder Andy.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By andy.partridge
11th Aug 2017 11:16

Cruel and factually incorrect. I have all my own teeth. And some others too.

Thanks (1)
By Duggimon
11th Aug 2017 11:23

How on earth would you calculate the personal use percentage on a tooth?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By andy.partridge
11th Aug 2017 11:28

The client needs to keep a detailed log of smiles that expose the tooth. It shouldn't be too difficult. There's probably a phone app for the very purpose, although taking a photo every time they smile might prove tiresome after a while.

Thanks (1)
Replying to andy.partridge:
By Duggimon
11th Aug 2017 11:32

If anyone is up to the job of perpetual selfie taking it's actors/luvvies/presenters

Surely however you're still using the tooth when you eat but then some of that eating might be allowable subsistence so you have to factor that in. It's a complicated issue.

Thanks (0)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
11th Aug 2017 11:40

All this [***] for a (maximum) a couple of hundred pounds in tax.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
By mrme89
11th Aug 2017 11:47

In the world of small business, these amounts matter.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By Chris Mann
11th Aug 2017 12:07

Oh, for goodness sake, size matters, as you well know.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
14th Aug 2017 11:12

Surely much more- my dentist has been nipping my head for a while re some implants, the cost mentioned is a little ahead of £10,000 . Even if I become a dental tourist to Europe, where ,the work is much cheaper, it is still going to be in the lower thousands.

Catch is I am Scottish and work in accountancy, with such a background smiles do not occur frequently , nor are they necessary.

Thanks (3)
Red Leader
By Red Leader
11th Aug 2017 12:05

Just say no.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Ckardie
12th Aug 2017 17:46

This was a great discussion. Thank you all, it helped a lot.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By alan.falcondale
14th Aug 2017 10:10

Could this extend also to barbers fees? asking for a friend,,,a hairy friend.

Thanks (0)
Replying to alan.falcondale:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
14th Aug 2017 10:16

Well the cost of a brazilian wax is allowable, in certain circumstances.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By alan.falcondale
14th Aug 2017 14:10

a long long time ago, in a design office far far away, my old boss used to take a tenner out of petty cash (remember cash?) to go get a haircut.
When challenged he said "just going to get my haircut" to which the reply was "but your hair grows in your own time too".....the final retort was "but I'm only getting the bit cut that grows in work time"

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By Paul Hawes
14th Aug 2017 14:49

What happens if I have a wax in Spain instead?

Thanks (0)
Nigel Harris
By Nigel Harris
14th Aug 2017 10:18

Useful discussion on medical expenses at https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2008/08/07/6660/medical-expenses including all the relevant cases on this area.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By jeremy28
14th Aug 2017 14:38

Can't believe no one has posted re being "holey" allowable.

Thanks (0)
Replying to jeremy28:
avatar
By andy.partridge
14th Aug 2017 14:53

That's reserved for threads about vicars.

Thanks (0)
Replying to andy.partridge:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
14th Aug 2017 16:52

Except in Scotland; we have a different system (as I keep having to remind on A Web), so you need to check alternative treatment if a Minister or a Priest.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
RLI
By lionofludesch
14th Aug 2017 17:04

I think you might find we have ministers and priests down here too.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
14th Aug 2017 15:01

I would suck it & see.

Thanks (0)
By Democratus
14th Aug 2017 16:04

Someone needs to be Incisive here and get a poligrip on what is going on. It canine be that difficult to tell the client "bite me" and to just get it fixed out of his / her own pocket. The trouble with these threads is that there is too much filling and it needs an injection of common sense, Have a look at the costs - v - benefits and denplan the correct approach for the client. if money is the root of all evil then teeth must be close to being the worst, and a good advisor will try and stop these issues gumming up the works.

With apologies
D

Thanks (0)
Replying to Democratus:
avatar
By Dib
14th Aug 2017 16:34

Fangs for that post - magic!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Dib:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
14th Aug 2017 16:55

Well, that post crowns all others and gets to the root of the problem.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
14th Aug 2017 16:23

Yes; he definitely needs to bite the bullet here.

Thanks (0)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
14th Aug 2017 17:03

Just tell the client that HMRC will leave his tax relief under his pillow.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
RLI
By lionofludesch
14th Aug 2017 17:18

Very risky to joke about the fairies, Portia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40863737

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
14th Aug 2017 17:20

As a Tooth Fairy does HMRC not more behave like the "Great Red Dragon and the Woman Clothed in Sun"

Thanks (1)
avatar
By alan.falcondale
15th Aug 2017 07:53

Would it not be easier to just say get a false tooth for the times when they are on set or in work?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rmunday
15th Aug 2017 09:14

IMHO it must fail under duality of purpose rules as established in Mallalieu and many other cases. Historically always a contentious area which has mainly been decided in favour of HMRC. Of course your client may have an ambition of joining the ranks of case law!

Thanks (0)
Share this content