PDA

View Full Version : Can I claim my glasses as expenses ?



topgun
13th August 2007, 13:27
I don't use accountant. I wonder if I can claim my glasses as the expenses of work tool like a computer.

swamp
13th August 2007, 13:34
I don't use accountant. I wonder if I can claim my glasses as the expenses of work tool like a computer.

So you're blind as well as stupid. Bad luck.

richard-af
13th August 2007, 13:37
I don't use accountant. I wonder if I can claim my glasses as the expenses of work tool like a computer.

Glasses? Maybe. Contents? No.

MrRobin
13th August 2007, 13:38
No I don't think so. Comes under the same rules as clothes... i.e. :

Yes you need clothes to work, but you also need clothes at other times too so they're not exclusively for work purposes so not a valid expense.

hugebrain
13th August 2007, 13:44
You can claim for the cost of the eye test but not the glasses.

RightLaugh
13th August 2007, 13:44
cheap skate

Bluebird
13th August 2007, 14:22
you can if they are safety glasses, or welding glasses or diving glasses - if they are just for reading the Daily Star - no.

Cooperinliverp00l
13th August 2007, 14:27
No I don't think so. Comes under the same rules as clothes... i.e. :

Yes you need clothes to work, but you also need clothes at other times too so they're not exclusively for work purposes so not a valid expense.

what if your a naturist then you would only buy cloths for work ?

Muttley08
13th August 2007, 14:36
Just noticed the guy's name 'topgun' - presumably they're cheesy mirrored ones for small egotistical people into alternative religions (nb. didnt dare say anything else against said religion or they'd have me :eyes)

SandyDown
13th August 2007, 14:55
Good idea I need a new Channel glasses - will check with my accountant re claiming back, btw I claim for a clothes allowance every year, didn't hear any objection from the HMRC, can do it as long as you are not taking the pi$$

sasguru
13th August 2007, 14:57
Just noticed the guy's name 'topgun' - presumably they're cheesy mirrored ones for small egotistical people into alternative religions (nb. didnt dare say anything else against said religion or they'd have me :eyes)

You mean the pile of crud called Scientology :mad
Don't get me started ...

Not So Wise
13th August 2007, 15:42
No I don't think so. Comes under the same rules as clothes... i.e. :

Yes you need clothes to work, but you also need clothes at other times too so they're not exclusively for work purposes so not a valid expense.

Hmm that raises an interesting point, i only ever wear a suit and tie for work, thus could it be argued that these are a valid expence?

DimPrawn
13th August 2007, 15:50
The IR view on this is that you are all tax dodging disguised employees anyway, so you can't claim shit.

HTH

Methuselah
13th August 2007, 16:05
The IR view on this is that you are all tax dodging disguised employees anyway, so you can't claim shit.

HTHIf you work on a computer all day, and use different glasses for that, then you can claim them from your employer.

r0bly0ns
13th August 2007, 16:32
Hmm that raises an interesting point, i only ever wear a suit and tie for work, thus could it be argued that these are a valid expence?


I asked my accountant this when first starting out.

The response was that it was only claimable if the item of clothing was specifically designed for doing the job you are doing.

I.e. overalls, yes if you are a mechanic or simillar.
Because they are specifically designed for keeping what's underneath clean when doing dirty jobs.

But a suit / shirt / trousers, no, not as someone who sits at a desk all day.
Because it is not specifically designed for wearing whilst sitting at a desk all day.

Muttley08
13th August 2007, 17:53
You mean the pile of crud called Scientology :mad
Don't get me started ...

I read a load of stuff about it after that documentary....they're completely nuts...

I'm an aethiest but like to understand other religions, but when I've seen a couple of interviews, read about it, it's clear this lot really are as mad as the proverbial y-fronts...

Everyone's entitled to their religion, but...

xoggoth
13th August 2007, 18:22
If they are required especially for use with your computer, yes you can, otherwise not.

This is from accountingweb article 2000

Eyesight tests
Employers have certain duties (since the introduction of the Health
and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992) to provide
free eye tests for employees who are required to use computers for
their work.

The Revenue allow an exemption where an employee is required to use
a computer or other visual display unit (VDU) as part of the normal
duties of his or her employment. Where this is the case, no benefit
in kind will arise in respect of an eye sight test. Furthermore, if
glasses are provided only for VDU use then no chargeable benefit
will arise if the employer meets the cost of these. The NIC
treatment is the same.

If glasses are provided for more general use, but include a special
prescription for VDU use, then the Revenue manuals say that no
benefit will arise in respect of ‘a proportion of the cost relating
to the special prescription’.

Where the contract is between
the employer and the optician, the provision of the glasses will now
represent a payment in kind that will attract a Class 1A liability.

IR35 Avoider
13th August 2007, 19:51
Hmm that raises an interesting point, i only ever wear a suit and tie for work, thus could it be argued that these are a valid expence?

The famous case in this regard is the barrister who argued that she would never wear her court clothes in a non-working situation, so should be able to claim. The judge turned her down, I think on the grounds of dual-purpose. While her clothes may have served the purpose of being appropriate dress for court, they also served the non-work purpose of preventing her from being naked, therefore as an expense they were not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of work.

(I last read the details of this case several years ago, so I may have got it wrong...)

Old Greg
14th August 2007, 08:55
If you work on a computer all day, and use different glasses for that, then you can claim them from your employer.

This is spot on. They need to be sepctacles that you would not otherwise use (e.g. for driving or for reading). In theory there are not many people who fit into this category (especially not under the age of 40-something), but in practice if you can get an Optometrist to write on a spectacle prescription, 'For VDU use only', you'll be OK. If you have a small prescription and genuinely don't need them for driving, the trick is to say that you get headaches when you use the computer, and that you take regular breaks from use (a few minutes every hour or two). That should swing it. There may be a limit to how much you can spend on combined frame and lenses and claim back (if you buy 3k Cartier frames, questions may be asked - don't know if there's a formal cut-off). Your accountant should be able to advise, and you can claim back the eye examination fee.

Bluebird
14th August 2007, 08:56
The famous case in this regard is the barrister who argued that she would never wear her court clothes in a non-working situation, so should be able to claim. The judge turned her down, I think on the grounds of dual-purpose. While her clothes may have served the purpose of being appropriate dress for court, they also served the non-work purpose of preventing her from being naked, therefore as an expense they were not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of work.

(I last read the details of this case several years ago, so I may have got it wrong...)


No you are spot on.

Old Greg
14th August 2007, 10:55
And thou shalt be blighted by the curses of the Great Prophet (or Profit) El Ron... until the end of thy days... much weeping and gnashing of teeth will befall thee.

Or something... :D

We all know you're in league with Xenu, Zeity.

Sysman
14th August 2007, 12:44
(I last read the details of this case several years ago, so I may have got it wrong...)
You are right. I followed this one too, and remember thinking that if a barrister and a female one at that couldn't win, there was no chance for me.

TheFaQQer
29th August 2007, 13:38
I asked my accountant this when first starting out.

The response was that it was only claimable if the item of clothing was specifically designed for doing the job you are doing.

I.e. overalls, yes if you are a mechanic or simillar.
Because they are specifically designed for keeping what's underneath clean when doing dirty jobs.

But a suit / shirt / trousers, no, not as someone who sits at a desk all day.
Because it is not specifically designed for wearing whilst sitting at a desk all day.


The famous case in this regard is the barrister who argued that she would never wear her court clothes in a non-working situation, so should be able to claim. The judge turned her down, I think on the grounds of dual-purpose. While her clothes may have served the purpose of being appropriate dress for court, they also served the non-work purpose of preventing her from being naked, therefore as an expense they were not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of work.

(I last read the details of this case several years ago, so I may have got it wrong...)

What about if they were company branded?

My wife's company has just bought some branded T-shirts and stuff, for staff use. Can they be claimed as expenses?

If they were being given out as promotional material, then they would be OK, but what if they were just being given to staff to wear?

Bluebird
29th August 2007, 15:12
I would think that company branded stuff would be ok, as the company would purchase and then provide for the staff to use.

However, I would have thought that a company branded uniform would cost more than a "standard" item, and the savings would be very marginal if at all - and you'd have to wear it at a client site...

Could be funny though if you've incorporated with a funny company name like "I'm outside IR35 so there Ltd"

TheFaQQer
29th August 2007, 15:59
I would think that company branded stuff would be ok, as the company would purchase and then provide for the staff to use.

However, I would have thought that a company branded uniform would cost more than a "standard" item, and the savings would be very marginal if at all - and you'd have to wear it at a client site...

Could be funny though if you've incorporated with a funny company name like "I'm outside IR35 so there Ltd"

It's not designed as a cost saving - more that she needs some funky t-shirts to advertise the company with when she does events, so if she can claim them against the company then she will.

Bluebird
31st August 2007, 08:11
should be fine then, just bog standard business expense.

oxtailsoup
31st August 2007, 08:27
You can get your limited company to pay for glasses as long as the receipt says 'for VDU use'.