Skip to content
Solved
SearchBrowse
Sign in

Contents

Official guidance
VAT Input Tax

VIT60000 · Legal history

  • VIT61080 · Cases about business purpose
  • VIT61250 · Cases about definition of input tax
  • VIT61330 · Cases about recipient of supply
  • VIT61360 · Cases about legal expenses
  • VIT61410 · Cases about sponsorship
  • VIT62100 · Cases about direct and immediate link
  • VIT62200 · Cases about intending traders
  • VIT62520 · Cases about mixed use of assets
  • VIT62540 · Cases about apportionment
  • VIT62560 · Cases about charges for private use
  • VIT63100 · Cases about evidence to claim input tax
  • VIT63200 · Cases about regulation 111
  • VIT64050 · Cases about holding companies
  • VIT64150 · Cases about domestic accommodation
  • VIT64300 · Cases about entertainment
  • VIT64380 · Cases about clothing
  • VIT64680 · Cases about motoring expenses
  • VIT64690 · Cases about private use of cars
  1. Legal history: contents
  2. Legal history: cases about clothing

VIT64380 | Legal history: cases about clothing

From HM Revenue & Customs · VAT Input Tax

Brown (BJ) VTD 6552
Hill (JK) & Mansell (SJ) (t/a JK Hill & Co) 1988 STC 424

Please note that the following material is not a full summary of the case - it merely highlights the principle referred to in the appropriate section of this manual.

Brown (BJ) VTD 6552

HMRC disallowed input tax claimed against the purchase of clothes. The business argued that the clothing was intended to cultivate a professional image that would attract the attention of prospective clients. The tribunal held the claim was not valid because the business had not established that the cost was for the purpose of the business.

Hill (JK) & Mansell (SJ) (t/a JK Hill & Co) 1988 STC 424

Two retailers claimed input tax on the cost of the suits they wore at work. The tribunal held that the claim was not valid. This is because it is not a business expense to dress well and conform to the standards of a particular lifestyle.

PreviousNext
PrivacyTerms