You cannot claim the cost of everyday clothing as a business expense, even if you only ever wear it for work. The House of Lords decided in Mallalieu v Drummond [1983] 57 TC 330 that ordinary clothes always serve a private purpose of warmth and decency, so they fail the wholly and exclusively test. Protective clothing, recognisable uniforms and performance costumes are different: their cost, and the cost of cleaning and repairing them, is allowable.

Why can’t I claim a suit I only wear for work?

Every trading expense must be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade under section 34(1)(a) ITTOIA 2005. HMRC’s Business Income Manual at BIM37900 explains that some types of spending have an intrinsic duality of purpose, and ordinary civilian clothing is the first item on its list. For these costs HMRC does not have to prove you had a private motive; the private purpose is treated as always present, even if it was not in your conscious mind when you paid.

BIM37910 states the practical rule. Ordinary clothing worn in the course of a trade is disallowed, even where a professional body requires a particular standard of dress, and even where you can show you never wear it outside work. The question is whether the item could suitably form part of a hypothetical person’s everyday wardrobe. For more on the underlying test, see the wholly and exclusively rule.

What happened in Mallalieu v Drummond?

Miss Mallalieu was a barrister. Bar rules required her to wear sober clothing in court, so she bought subdued clothing of a suitable design and colour which she wore in court and travelling between court and chambers, but never socially. She preferred brighter clothes in private life and said she gave no thought to warmth and decency when buying the court wardrobe. She claimed the cost of replacing and laundering it.

The General Commissioners refused the claim. The High Court and Court of Appeal allowed it. The House of Lords, by a majority of four to one, found for the Crown. Lord Brightman’s reasoning, summarised at BIM37910, rested on three points.

  • Object is not just conscious motive. Her stated motive was professional, but she needed clothes to travel to work and to wear at work, and one object, though not a conscious motive, was the clothing she needed as a human being.
  • Necessity is not the test. The statutory test does not ask whether the cost was necessary, so the fact that the Bar could stop her appearing was immaterial.
  • No logical stopping point. If a barrister could deduct a work wardrobe, so could solicitors, accountants, doctors and every other self employed person who chose to set aside clothes for work.

Lord Brightman also said the decision did not affect uniforms and protective clothing. Specialist clothing needed to carry out the duties of the trade remains allowable.

What clothing can a self employed person claim?

GOV.UK lists the clothing costs sole traders and partners can claim, covering buying, cleaning and repairing:

  • protective clothing needed for the work, such as safety boots or hard hats;
  • clothing that protects everyday clothes while working, such as aprons or overalls, if used only for work;
  • specialist clothing or uniforms that are not everyday clothing, such as a barrister’s wig and gown;
  • costumes used for acting, entertaining or advertising the business, unless they are everyday clothing.

It also says plainly that you cannot claim for everyday clothing such as suits, shirts, dresses or ordinary shoes, even if you wear them for work.

The reason protective clothing survives is explained in Caillebotte v Quinn [1975] 50 TC 222, quoted by HMRC at EIM32465: the cost of protective clothing worn in the trade is deductible because warmth and decency are incidental to the protection the trade requires.

What makes clothing a uniform?

BIM37910 gives a nurse’s uniform and the evening dress worn by a professional waiter as examples of clothing outside the everyday wardrobe. HMRC’s more detailed test is in its employment income guidance at EIM32475, written for employees but useful by analogy:

  • a uniform is a set of specialised clothing that is recognisable as a uniform and identifies the wearer as having a particular occupation;
  • clothing in corporate colours worn by all staff is not enough on its own;
  • a permanent and conspicuous badge fixed to otherwise ordinary clothing may be enough, but a detachable badge is not;
  • the essential test is whether a person in the street would readily recognise it as a uniform;
  • items worn with a uniform, such as shoes, socks and underwear, are not part of it.

So a trader who has a polo shirt permanently embroidered with a prominent business logo is in a stronger position than one who wears plain black clothes because they look professional.

What about performers and presenters?

BIM50160 confirms that clothing acquired for a role in a film, stage or television performance is allowable because it is costume, not part of an everyday wardrobe. The same page repeats that performers cannot deduct a wardrobe of everyday clothes even if used only for work. A presenter who buys ordinary outfits to wear on camera is therefore in the same position as the barrister, unless the items are genuinely costume.

Can a limited company buy clothes for its director?

BIM37900 notes that its intrinsic duality guidance relates to the self employed and partnerships, not to companies. For a company the main issue is usually the director’s personal tax. GOV.UK’s employer guidance says that most uniforms and protective clothing are exempt. Other clothing an employer buys for or lends to an employee must be reported on form P11D with Class 1A National Insurance on the value. If the employee buys it and is reimbursed, the amount goes through payroll with PAYE and Class 1 National Insurance. See benefits in kind and form P11D and Class 1A National Insurance.

Where clothing is given outright, the taxable value is the higher of its second hand value when given and the original cost to the employer. Where it is lent, it is the higher of 20% of its market value when first provided and any annual hire charges paid.

How does this work in practice?

Illustration only. A self employed electrician spends the following in a year.

Item Claim? Reason
Safety boots, £90 Yes Protective clothing
Hi visibility jacket, £30 Yes Protective clothing
Overalls, £60, worn only on jobs Yes Protects everyday clothes, used only for work
Polo shirts with a permanent large logo, £100 Likely yes Arguably a recognisable uniform; keep evidence of the branding
Jeans and trainers kept for work, £120 No Everyday clothing, Mallalieu v Drummond
Laundry of overalls Yes Cleaning qualifying clothing is allowable

What mistakes should you avoid?

  • Claiming “work clothes” as a category. The test is the nature of the item, not how often or where you wear it.
  • Relying on a dress code. A required standard of dress, whether set by a professional body or a client, does not make ordinary clothes deductible.
  • Treating a detachable badge or lanyard as turning clothes into a uniform. HMRC’s guidance says it does not.
  • Claiming cleaning of everyday clothes. Laundry is only allowable for clothing that itself qualifies.
  • Keeping no receipts. If HMRC opens an enquiry, it will want to see what was bought; the HMRC enquiry checklist covers record keeping more generally.

Employees are under different rules and may be able to claim a flat rate expense for uniforms and tools; GOV.UK sets a default of £60 where the job is not on HMRC’s list. For other costs a sole trader can claim, see allowable business expenses.

If HMRC opens a check into your return, tax investigation insurance pays your accountant’s fees. Solar Protect cover pays up to £100,000 with no excess; it never pays tax, interest or penalties. Read how our cover works or get a quote.

Related Accountapedia entries

Sources

Reviewed by Christine Anderson, Broker, Solar Protect. Last reviewed 8 October 2026. Part of Accountapedia, the Solar Protect guide to UK tax and accounting. This page is general information, not personalised advice.