Claiming a TV as an expense

[jtufty]

Hi

I recently purchased a new £500 TV. This was partly for my work (to make sure what I build displays correctly on a TV) and partly because I wanted a new TV.

I was talking about expenses with a friend (who owns his own business) and mentioned the TV. I said that I would probably use it 30% of the time for business, and the rest for pleasure, so I was going to claim 30% of it (£150) as an expense. He said that this wasnt possible, and I would have to either claim 100% of it as a business expense, or none of it.

Is he right?
Thanks

[bd6759]

Your friend is right. The business purpose has to be the sole purpose.

[jtufty]

Thanks @bd6759 .

That puts me in a bit of a quandary. Do you think I should claim it all as an expense? (at the moment I estimate 30% as business use, but if I keep getting asked for work that involves TV dev then it will be more).

Corollary question: I work from home. My monthly internet bill is £30. I claim 50% of that as business expense (and 50% as pleasure). Is that ok to do?

[bd6759]

If it is 30% business, how does that fit with business being the sole purpose? It would need to be 100%.

In any event, 30% would be over 7 hours each and every day. Clearly that is absurd.

No. You cannot claim for your telly.

[robbob]

bd6759

In any event, 30% would be over 7 hours each and every day. Clearly that is absurd.

Oh come on bd6759 - surely a fair business % use if the buisness % divideded by te overall use % of said asset - clearly the op is unlikely to be watching/using the telly 17 hours a day for personal reasons.

I actually think the op may have a decent argument here - would appreciate your further comments bd6759

jtufty - can you confirm when you say the following that the tv is really integral to this function that you perform - its not simply the case that once every 2 minutes you are plugging something in that you could equally well plug into a small monitor or older telly to perform the function.
Where is this telly located and where do you do your work ?
In summary could it be that this telly is the main household telly in the front room and you are making up a circumstance that may not have existed otherwise simply to get the claim. Ie is it not more likely flash new telly is in front room and old telly is now in ypur workshop with higher buisness use %?

This was partly for my work (to make sure what I build displays correctly on a TV)

If we take the viewpoint that the tv in question is integral and necessary to your business and not your main family tv with minimal business use that your mate down the pub says you you should be able to claim for.

If this asset is necessary for buisness use then BIM37600 may be in your side here if my reading is correct - hopefully bd6759 will add some useful comments here agreeing or disagereing with my comments.

The trade purpose must be the only purposeTo qualify for a deduction from trading profits under S34(1)(a) ITTOIA 2005 (for unincorporated businesses) and S54(1)(a) CTA 2009 (for companies), the trade purpose of the expense must be the sole purpose. A non-trade or private purpose precludes deduction in full where there is no objective yardstick by which any trade element can be distinguished from the non-trade element.

But you should not interpret S34(1)(a) ITTOIA 2005 and S54(1)(a) CTA 2009 as requiring that the whole of the expenditure be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade, profession or vocation.
Where a definite part or proportion of an expense is wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade profession or vocation, do not disallow that part or proportion on the ground that the expense is not, as a whole, so laid out or expended. A deduction for the identifiable proportion which was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade is provided in S34(2) ITTOIA 2005 and S54(2) CTA 2009

It seems reasonably obvious to me you can estimate or judge the buisness % use of said asset (if the story is not jackanory) if the business use is genuine and necessary i see zero difference between a proportionate claim here and silar items like % use of computers mobiles and cars - where generlaly no one is quibbling about the claims being made.

[bd6759]

But if you use a room partly for business, the calculation is based on actual use, not as a proportion of overall use.

Of course we are both looking at this from the wrong angle. S3; cannot apply because of s33. It is capital expenditure so we need to consider capital allowances.
S11 CAA defines qualifying expenditure as capital expenditure incurred wholly or partly for the purposes of a qualifying activity. An apportionment is done on a just and reasonable basis.

You have asked pertinent questions. If this TV Is the main TV, I’d assert that only the business use should count. If it was a second tv kept in his office then perhaps an apportionment based on total use is more appropriate.

[robbob]

Of course we are both looking at this from the wrong angle. S3; cannot apply because of s33. It is capital expenditure so we need to consider capital allowances.
S11 CAA defines qualifying expenditure as capital expenditure incurred wholly or partly for the purposes of a qualifying activity. An apportionment is done on a just and reasonable basis.

Cheers for that clarification bd6759 - knew you would keep me right as always

[etf]

robbob, the use of "jackanory" suggests an adviser of a certain vintage with a good patina.

[robbob]

the use of "jackanory" suggests an adviser of a certain vintage with a good patina.

Technically speaking jackanory didnt stop till 1996

So if we say i rememeber it well as a lad ( 3 year old in 1996) - that makes me still in my 20's - technically possibly even if it is totally jackanory.

[etf]

I remember having a Pippin and Tog annual from Pogles Wood so definitely a case of Pot and Kettle.