Expenses and benefits: Clothing - Brent Linen Hire on 02034881616 visit us www.brentlinenhire.co.uk for chef unfirm hire, chef workwwar hire, restaurant linen hire, napkin hire, commercial laundry in London
Courtesy:
https://www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-clothing
For chef uniforms / workwear / jackets hire / rental in London, contact Brent Linen Hire on 02034881616 visit us www.brentlinenhire.co.uk
Contents
1. Overview
2. What's exempt
3. What to report and pay
4. Work out the value
5. Technical guidance
Overview
As an employer providing clothing to your employees, you have certain tax, National Insurance and reporting obligations.
What’s included
This includes purchase, cleaning and repair costs for all clothing.
What you have to pay and report depends on if it’s:
•
protective clothing that your employee needs to do their job
•
a uniform they only wear at work
What's exempt
You don’t have to pay tax and National Insurance on most uniforms or protective clothing, but you may still have to report these expenses to HMRC.
Salary sacrifice arrangements
You do have to report the clothing provided if it’s part of salary sacrifice arrangement.
What to report and pay
If the clothing you provide isn’t exempt, you may have to report it to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and you may have to pay tax and National Insurance on the value.
Uniforms or protective clothing
You must report the cost on form P11D of:
• buying the clothing for your employees
• lending it to them
• cleaning or repairing it
If you provide uniforms or protective clothing, you can get exemptions (which have replaced dispensations). This means you won’t have to include them in your end-of-year reports.
Any other clothing
This includes clothing employees wear at work that isn’t necessary protective clothing or a uniform.
If you buy other clothing for employees, or lend it to them, you must:
• report the cost on form P11D
• pay Class 1A National Insurance on the value of the benefit
If your employees buy it and you pay them back, you must:
• add the value of the benefit to your employee’s other earnings
• deduct and pay PAYE tax and Class 1 National Insurance through payroll
If your employees buy any non-durable clothing (eg tights and stockings) and you pay them back, you must:
• add the value of the benefit to your employee’s other earnings
• deduct and pay PAYE tax (but not Class 1 National Insurance) through payroll
If your employees pay to have clothing cleaned or repaired, you must:
• add the value of the benefit to their other earnings
• deduct and pay PAYE tax and Class 1 National Insurance through payroll
Work out the value
The value of clothing for tax and reporting depends on whether you give or lend it and who initially pays for it.
Clothing you give to employees
Use whichever is the higher of:
• the second-hand value of the clothing when you give it to your employee
• the initial cost to you of the clothing
Clothing you lend to employees
Use whichever is the higher of:
• 20% of the clothing’s market value when you first provided it
• any annual rental or hire charges you pay for it
Clothing your employees buy and you pay them back for, or cleaning and repair costs
Use the amount of money you give your employee for the clothing, cleaning or repair.
Salary sacrifice arrangements
If the cost of the clothing is less than the amount of salary given up, report the salary amount instead.
These rules don’t apply to arrangements made before 6 April 2017 - check when the rules will change.
Technical guidance
The following guides contain more detailed information:
• clothing
• specialist clothing
• uniforms
• upkeep and replacement of uniform and protective clothing
Other expenses: clothing
No deduction should be permitted under Section 336 ITEPA 2003 for the cost of ordinary clothing worn at work.
The cost of clothing worn at work has been considered by the Courts on a number of occasions. The case law is summarised at EIM32455 and illustrated by examples EIM32460 and EIM32461.
A deduction is permitted for the cost of certain specialist clothing, see EIM32465. The sort of clothing for which a deduction may be permitted is illustrated by examples EIM32471 and EIM32476.
Where a deduction is permitted for the cost of clothing a deduction should also be permitted for the upkeep of that clothing, see EIM32480 and examples EIM32481 and EIM32482.
Other expenses: clothing: case law
The leading case on clothing is Hillyer v Leeke (51TC90). Mr Hillyer was a computer engineer who was required by his manager to wear a suit and tie at work. He only wore his suit and tie at work and they suffered excessive wear and tear as a result of the nature of his duties.
It was held in the High Court that no deduction was due for the cost of the clothing.
The cost of the clothing was not incurred wholly and exclusively in the performance of Mr Hillyer’s duties, see EIM31660. At the same time as he was wearing the clothing for work it was also meeting his need for warmth and decency.
It could not be said that warmth and decency were merely incidental to the business purpose of the clothing, see EIM31664. Both purposes were inextricably intermingled.
The cost of the clothing could not be apportioned to take account of the wear and tear suffered at work. There is no part of the cost of the clothing that can be identified as incurred exclusively in the performance of the duties, see EIM31661.
The fact that the employer required Mr Hillyer to wear particular clothing did not help his case. Goulding J commented that:
“the employee has to wear something and the nature of his job dictates what that something will be.”
Many jobs require clothing of a particular type. For example, outdoor workers may require warm clothing while other workers may require lightweight clothing. There are also jobs for which the employee is required to be particularly smart. The fact that particular clothing may be necessary to carry out a particular job does not make the cost of that clothing deductible. This is illustrated by examples EIM32460 and EIM32461.
Similarly the fact that the clothing was only worn at work was immaterial. There was no necessity to restrict his wearing of it to his working hours.
A deduction is permitted for the cost of certain specialist clothing, see EIM32465.
Other expenses: clothing: example
A night watchman is employed to patrol a builder’s yard overnight. He needs to provide his own clothing and this includes a warm waterproof jacket that he keeps at the yard and only wears at work. The jacket has a reflective surface so that he can be seen in the dark.
No deduction is due for the cost of the jacket or any of the other clothing that the night watchman wears. The jacket is ordinary clothing but of a type dictated by the nature of his job. It provides him with warmth and cover and the cost is not incurred wholly and exclusively in the performance of his duties, see EIM32455.
Other expenses: clothing: example
All of the sales assistants in a designer clothes shop are required by their employer to dress fashionably using the range of clothing sold in the shop. The purpose is to present a consistent and attractive image that will encourage sales.
The cost of the clothing is not deductible. The clothing is needed for warmth and decency as well as reinforcing the corporate image. The cost is not incurred wholly and exclusively in the performance of their duties, see EIM32455.
Other expenses: clothing: specialist clothing
The Courts have recognised that there may be exceptions to the general rule in EIM32455 that the cost of clothing is not deductible.
The rules for computing taxable business profits contain a similar rule that expenses must be incurred wholly and exclusively for a business purpose. In the Trading Income case of Caillebotte v Quinn (50TC222) Templeman J commented that:
“the cost of protective clothing worn in the course of carrying on a trade will be deductible, because warmth and decency are incidental to the protection necessary to the carrying on of the trade.
In the same way a deduction can be permitted from earnings for the cost of protective clothing, see EIM32470. In the case of Hillyer v Leeke (51TC90)Goulding J recognised that the cost of clothing could be deductible where the clothing is:
“of a special character dictated by the occupation as a matter of physical necessity.”
We also accept that specialist clothing can include clothing that is a uniform or part of a uniform, see EIM32475.
A deduction can only be permitted where the employee must provide the specialist clothing at his or her own expense.
Other expenses: clothing: protective clothing
A deduction can be permitted for the cost of genuinely protective clothing that is worn as a matter of physical necessity because of the nature of the job and where the employee must bear the cost. This will typically cover items such as overalls, protective gloves and boots.
In the case of Woodcock v CIR (51TC698) the taxpayer wanted a deduction for the cost of ordinary clothing worn underneath protective clothing and for his shoes and glasses worn at work. A deduction was refused because none of this clothing can be said to be worn wholly and exclusively in performing the duties of the employment.
Where you accept that a deduction can be permitted for items of protective clothing you should not also permit a deduction for other clothing worn at the same time, see example EIM32471.
Other expenses: clothing: protective clothing: example
The employees in a chemical factory are required to wear protective overalls and boots and to provide them at their own expense. Underneath their overalls they wear trousers, shirts and underwear but they must leave this clothing at work because of the risk of contamination. After each shift they shower and then change into clean clothes to go home.
A deduction is due for the cost of the protective overalls and boots. Any warmth and cover from the protective clothing is merely incidental, see EIM32465. No deduction is due for the cost of the other clothing worn with the protective clothing. This is ordinary clothing and the cost is not incurred wholly and exclusively in the performance of the duties of the employment.
Other expenses: clothing: uniforms
A deduction can be permitted for clothing that is recognisably a uniform or part of a uniform, where the employee is required by his or her duties to wear it and must bear the cost of it. A uniform in this context means a set of clothing of a specialised nature that is recognisable as a uniform and is intended to identify its wearer as having a particular occupation. Examples include traditional nurse or police uniforms.
It is not enough for the clothing to be uniform in the sense that all employees in the same employment wear clothing of a similar design or colour. For example, a Bank may wish to reinforce its corporate image by requiring all counter staff to wear a shirt or blouse in the corporate colours of blue and green. That clothing is not a uniform for this purpose and no deduction can be permitted for the cost of acquiring such clothing.
Fixing a permanent and conspicuous badge to what would otherwise be ordinary clothing may be enough to make it a uniform, but each case must be considered on its merits. The essential test is whether the employee would readily be recognised as wearing a uniform by the person in the street. A detachable badge is not sufficient to make the clothing to which it is attached part of a uniform.
Formal evening dress which, because of the customary practice of a particular occupation, is habitually worn on a day to day basis while performing the duties (for example, dinner jackets worn by waiters) may also be accepted.
Even where you accept that an employee wears a uniform it is likely that not all of the clothing they wear is part of that uniform. No deduction should be permitted for clothing that is not part of the uniform. For example, shoes, socks and underwear.
The guidance on uniforms is illustrated by examples EIM32476 and EIM32477.
In cases where the uniform or clothing remains the property of the employer, see also EIM32478.
Other expenses: clothing: uniforms: example
An airline requires its cabin crew to wear a blue jacket with a blue skirt or trousers, all of which have the airline name prominently sewn into the material. In addition female cabin crew are required to have a blue scarf with the airline name prominent. With this uniform crew are required to wear a white shirt or blouse, blue socks or dark tights and black shoes.
The jacket, skirt or trousers and scarf are a uniform and a deduction would be permitted for the cost of these items if the employees had to bear the cost themselves. The shirt or blouse, socks or tights and shoes are not treated as part of the uniform for this purpose and the cost of these items is not deductible, see EIM32475.
Other expenses: clothing: uniforms: example
A high street retailer requires its staff to wear clothing bought by them from a corporate catalogue. The clothing is designed to present a consistent image and is largely in the corporate colours of pink and green. The employer’s name appears on labels inside the clothing. While they are working employees wear a clip-on badge with their name and the employer’s name.
None of this clothing is a uniform for these purposes and no deduction should be permitted. Although there is some uniformity in appearance there is nothing in this clothing that would readily identify the employee to an observer as working for this employer, see EIM32475. The detachable badge is not sufficient.
Other expenses: clothing: uniforms provided by employer
Clothing provided for an employee by an employer is an employment related benefit within section 201 ITEPA 2003 (see generally EIM20001 onwards). Unless for the tax year 2015 to 2016 and earlier the employee is in an excluded employment, he or she is taxable on the benefit unless they are entitled to an off-setting deduction under section 336. The guidance at EIM32475 to EIM32477 applies to the benefit of employer provided clothing in the same way as it applies to clothing that the employees have to buy for themselves.
If the benefit of employer provided clothing does not satisfy the conditions for a deduction under section 336 the employee is taxable on whatever is the cash equivalent of the benefit. See generally EIM21102. If the clothing is given to the employee the cash equivalent is the cost to the employer. However, if the clothing remains the property of the employer, the taxable amount is the “annual value” of the use of the clothing (see EIM21631). That is, usually, 20% of its market value when first applied as a benefit.
Note that the market value of the clothing is not the same as the cost to the employer. It is the price that the clothing might reasonably be expected to fetch on a sale in the open market (see EIM21632). The market value of a set of “corporate clothing” is likely to be small, and 20% of that figure may well be negligible. Where the corporate clothing does not satisfy the conditions for a deduction under section 336 (see EIM32477), you should therefore take into account the guidance on “trivial benefits” (EIM21860 onwards) before seeking to charge tax on employer provided clothing which remains the property of the employer.
Brent Linen Hire is a reliable and trusted name in supplying and laundering chef uniforms / jackets, restaurant linen hire in London. Tel: 02034881616 info@brentlinenhire.co.uk www.brentlinenhire.co.uk
