I would say that this comes under the duality arguement and as they're not wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the purpose of the business I would say no.
Have a read of this page for computer screen operators as I think that there is a link between the scenario's although in the case of the forklift truck instructor it's doubtful that reading caused the issue whereas the use of computer screens may have contributed towards the deterioration in sight.
Potential interesting discussion this one as hand on heart I can't say that my initial rejection in truly based on anything more than gut feel about the duality of usage and there may be specific rules, as with use of computer equipment, that override that.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
this is one of those where whilst the scenario seems cut and dried I'm not 100% sure.
At the end of the day though if HMRC questioned the expense defending it would cost the client more than they've actually saved in tax so for the cost of a pair of glasses I would just pay it myself.
Not really in the same class as many of the claims that we see. I think that it was Robh who had someone try to put a boat through their company and we regularly see holidays disguised as business trips... But a pair of glasses.
Just not worth the risk of hassel for the client to even try it (that's not saying that trying to get big things through is worth the hassle! Think you know what I meant)..
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
I think that I need reading glasses after reading that... Or at least sun glasses! lol
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Thanks Shamus and kris for your responses. I agree £7 glasses aren't really worth taking the risk for. I've had quite a few questions lately. Busy at the mo!.
I would say definately not in this case but having said that I have put a pair of specialist glasses through for myself, as a) they are a special prescription for computer use, and b) are only (honestly ) used for business.
If the glasses were of a specialist type say made of safety glass for PPE, as well as for reading, I would have said it is OK.
Worth noting that when I was at the opticians, he actually told me that reading glasses were tax deductible but couldn't back that up when I challenged where he got that from.
AFAIK the only glasses which are deductible are safety glasses and glasses specifically for use on a computer following a DSE recommendation and optician's visit.
One is personal which I paid for and wear all the time I am not in my office.
The other was paid for by my company, and are used only for VDU use and are kept with my VDU in the office. I cannot use this second pair for every day use - as except for close up work as anything more than one metre away is a blurr! So there is no duality of purpose with my second pair of glasses.
VDU's are not just on computers. For example they can be found on testing equipment too. One employer I know will reimburse employees up to £150pa towards eye tests & glasses. The tests are tax free, and if the receipt for the glasses state they are for VDU use, only then the rest of the amount is also tax free. If the receipt does not state they are for VDU use (and no optition will put it on the receipt unless they are for VDU use only!) then the balance is treated as a BIK to the employee.
Hi,
Following this question, could a builder claim for a pair of glasses that he purchased only for work? He states he doesn't want to wear his good glasses for work and therefore purchased a prescription pair especially?
Thanks in advance
The builder needs glasses. The builder buys a second pair. The purpose, and motivation for buying the second pair is to protect his other pair of glasses, which if he had worn them, would come under the duality rule.
) used for business.
