Fashion Retail and Claiming Work Wear as an Expense off Your Tax

GLO on 05/10/2017 - 08:26
Last edited 05/10/2017 - 09:15 by 1 other user

Hi,

My missus works in Fashion retail and she is required to purchase in season clothing from their new and existing range. She is not allowed to wear clothing from a competitor whilst on shift.

This means that she is spending approx $500-$1000 per year on clothing that becomes redundant at the close of the season.

Traditionally, claiming the cost of uniforms and drycleaning (where applicable) requires a logo to be on the clothing for it to qualify.

Is this a grey area? The clothing clearly does have the company logo on it, but it is not a uniform like (Qantas etc)

On a related side note, my missus also gets asked to cover other shifts at other locations. Should she be able to claim the mileage and parking (some centres now charge parking) off her tax?

Appreciate any suggestions/advice.

Financial

Comments

  • CLoSeR on 05/10/2017 - 08:43
    +5

    https://www.hrblock.com.au/tax-tips/claiming-a-tax-deduction…

    Quote: If you work in clothing retail, you can’t claim for the clothing you purchased in that store, even if you’re required to wear it to work.

    Don't think she can claim it.

    You can usually claim vehicle expenses if required to use your own vehicle to travel to another office once you've started shift, for example start work at head office and have to drive to another town for a meeting. You can't claim driving to and from work.

    If you're just referring to her starting work at other locations then no it's not claimable and either is parking.

    • GLO on 06/10/2017 - 07:46

      thanks re clothing comments.

      I had thought that you have your 'typical place of work' which i appreciate you do not claim your travel to and from.

      However, the other locations being non-standard i had hoped may be claimable. Sounds like it doesnt qualify.

  • CyberMurning on 05/10/2017 - 08:44
    +1

    "Is this a grey area? The clothing clearly does have the company logo on it, but it is not a uniform like (Qantas etc)"

    they are not uniform. nothing grey here.

  • pjetson on 05/10/2017 - 08:44
    +4

    From the ATO web site:

    You can claim for clothing that is specific to your occupation, is not everyday in nature and allows the public to easily recognise your occupation - such as the checked pants a chef wears.

    You can't claim the cost of purchasing or cleaning clothes you bought to wear for work that are not specific to your occupation, such examples as a bartender's black trousers and white shirt, a business person's suit or a swimming instructor's swimwear.

    also

    You cannot claim the cost of purchasing or cleaning plain uniforms or clothes, such as black trousers, white shirts, suits or stockings, even if your employer requires you to wear them.

    Since you're just wearing normal clothes, not a specific uniform, it appears that you cannot claim them.

    Unfair, but that's the ATO for you.

    • GLO on 06/10/2017 - 07:46

      thank you for this.

  • bobbified on 05/10/2017 - 08:53
    +7

    Wow what tightarses! (the employer, not the OP)
    If the employer was that strict on the work attire, I would expect that they would supply the clothing or at least give each employee a certain amount each year as a "uniform allowance". Especially given the close-to-minimum wage the retail industry pays.

  • altomic on 05/10/2017 - 09:41

    who wears grey?!

    it is a grey issue if that the colour she is wearing.

    • GLO on 06/10/2017 - 08:00

      fortunately she doesnt have to wear grey! lol

  • eapster on 05/10/2017 - 10:03
    -4

    Hi OP, no grey area here - I would claim the uniforms on the basis of the company logo.

    Here's the relevant extract from the ATO website:

    Work uniforms-
    You can claim for a uniform, either compulsory or non-compulsory, that is unique and distinctive to the organisation you work for.
    Clothing is unique if it has been designed and made only for the employer. Clothing is distinctive if it has the employer's logo permanently attached and the clothing is not available to the public.
    You can't claim the cost of purchasing or cleaning a plain uniform.

    Here's the link:
    https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/Ded…

    • CLoSeR on 05/10/2017 - 10:09
      +1

      They cannot be clothing that is available for purchase by the general public.

      • eapster on 05/10/2017 - 10:11

        Yes that's correct, the clothing with the logos is not available for purchase by the general public would be my argument there.

        • CLoSeR on 05/10/2017 - 10:12

          The OP is referring to the clothing label/tag which you find on any garment. Staff are wearing clothing which is available for purchase in store.

        • eapster on 05/10/2017 - 10:17

          @CLoSeR:

          Yes, the OP hasn't specified where the logos are located on the clothing. If its indeed on the label/tag then I wouldn't claim it, but if its prominently visible to everyone and can easily identify the OPs missus as an employee of the store, I would have no hesitation in claiming the uniform on her tax.

        • GLO on 06/10/2017 - 07:49

          @eapster:

          For clarity, the clothing is the same items for sale to the public.

          The logo's are on the garment (in the usual place), but I admittedly was looking for a technicality!

    • eapster on 05/10/2017 - 10:58

      Not sure on why I was negged? I was simply stating the facts as per the ATO website.

      • Baysew on 05/10/2017 - 12:50
        -1

        The facts were correct, but your assumptions were wrong and so your intial advice was incorrect.

        In a fashion retailer, you may be required to wear new season garments to help sell the clothes. These clothes will also be available to the public. Fashion clothing do not have the logos on the outside.

        If its indeed on the label/tag then I wouldn't claim it,

        You have finally reached the correct advice.

        • eapster on 05/10/2017 - 13:03

          Yes but the Op hasn't confirmed where the logo is.
          You are assuming that the logo is on the label and not prominently shown where everyone can see.

        • GLO on 06/10/2017 - 07:54

          @eapster:

          Hi,

          based on comments, my missus cant claim.

          But as an example; a semi-sponsored athlete who can purchase Branded clothing (ie Nike, QuikSilver etc) where the company logo is clearly visible on the clothing item are also not able claim the cost of the items even though they are required to wear it to their work (being hi profile sporting events that they are competing in (their work)

        • eapster on 06/10/2017 - 19:56

          @GLO:

          Cant comment on the athlete example, but one of my previous employers (big multinational company) who used to have clothes that employees could purchase at a subsidised cost (essentially branded clothes with the company logo prominently visible) would actively tell us that it was work uniforms and that we could claim it on tax.

          Based on my reading of the link below: it looks to be all legit as well.

          https://www.business.gov.au/assistance/textile-clothing-and-…

  • djkelly69 on 05/10/2017 - 11:59
    +1

    No idea if it is still current and/or relevant to your missus, but she may wish to discuss her situation regarding being forced to buy/wear her employer's clothes with Fair Work Australia - see press release here. Deals with the exact issue she has.

    In short:

    Under the General Retail Industry Award 2010, an employer who requires an employee to wear special clothing must reimburse the cost of the clothing.

    Additionally, the Award provides that where an employee is required to launder a special uniform, dress or other clothing, full-time employees will get an allowance of $6.25 per week and part-time or casual employees $1.25 per shift.

    • GLO on 06/10/2017 - 07:59

      Thanks,

      Very interesting.

      Maybe the employer skirts around this by saying its 'Not mandatory but recommended' and wearing the in season stock clearly aids in sales, whilst wearing a competitors clothing item may hinder your sales (ie, you look great in that top, where is that in this store)

      On a related note, im not sure if this is still current but i recall the younger fashion retail market used to get the girls to wear clothing off the rack (with tags) and at the end of the shift, steam and return to the rack for sale.

    • pjetson on 06/10/2017 - 08:25

      The trouble with this kind of thing is that if the employer is not already paying these allowances and reimbursements, then trying to get them to do so could easily result in you not having a job any more.

      Of course, that won't be the reason given for dismissal.

  • tsunamisurfer on 05/10/2017 - 12:36

    This means that she is spending approx $500-$1000 per year on clothing that becomes redundant at the close of the season.

    How do these wearable pieces of clothing become invalidated as wearable pieces of clothing at close of season?

    • Baysew on 05/10/2017 - 12:52

      Because it is no longer in fashion.

      • GLO on 06/10/2017 - 07:42

        Hi, that is correct.

        The clothing was only purchased for the purpose of workwear. They are not items my missus would purchase as part of her personal fashion choice.

        The items are redundant for 2 main reasons, as Baysew said, it is no longer in fashion (as it is seasonal) and the clothing doesnt seem to last more than a season of wash and wear.

  • Sensiekatie on 06/10/2017 - 10:55

    It is interesting this uniform thing.

    I was an RN at a hospital many years ago with a typical Scottish name. They were revolutionary at the time, and we wore unmarked shorts, culottes or skirts and a logo on our top.

    They got a tartan designed that was not official but unique to that hospital. Thus, it was a tax deduction.

    Our work shoes, when the ruling changed from as long as they are not worn to work TO what was considered by the ATO As " not shoes unique to nurses (other people could buy them in a shoe shop) and they were such that WE COULD WEAR THEM TO OTHER PLACES."

    That was ridiculous as a clinical RN (or other classifications), as opposed to administrative, sure is not going to wear shoes elsewhere that have walked in all sorts of bodily fluids and waste, wound drainage, etc OR has been spat on, vomited on and many other horrible things.

    So the nursing shoes started - either with logos or sold them only at a specialty store.

    OP, your wife (if she is thrifty and not strictly into changing her whole wardrobe every year), can wear what she bought from the store.

    I wonder if she donated them to charity if they would be a donation? Highly suspect no.

    As she cannot wear other labels at work, a good tax person current on the year in question (not everyone is) might know a loophole. Some times it pays to ask an expert rather than do the return yourself.

    Our accountant is basically OCD and she goes to the course each year and studies the manual for that year (it becomes her bible). Then has to unlearn some the next year and update her knowledge for that year.

  • accountant4Jesus on 06/10/2017 - 12:25

    The ATO has 4 different codes for claiming work-related clothing expenses in tax returns: compulsory and non-compulsory uniforms, occupation-specific clothing and protective clothing. From what you said about the attitude of the retailer, I would deem the clothing as a non-compulsory uniform and claim it as such in her tax return, but I would only claim a reasonable amount (say $150-$200 of clothes plus $150 of laundry). That would mean she would still be out of pocket for the amounts she had to spend for the clothes, but she would be able to get some of it back in her tax. I personally think that using sales staff as an artificial means to inflate your profit by demanding they purchase your clothing range to use at work is low though.

    • GLO on 08/10/2017 - 17:29

      Thanks,

      I will clarify with my missus regarding the 'terminology' of the workplace attire.

      And will mention this to my accountant also.

  • dc4207 on 06/10/2017 - 12:53

    If she works for the same retail fashion company that I do, employees are "encouraged" to wear current season stock. Their policy was once "required" to wear but they changed wording a few years ago. The company I work for gives 60% staff discount but I still claim for the amount after discount as non compulsory in my tax return claim.
    As it is not actually compulsory to wear the current season stock I do sometimes wear an older season item, I know of a store other the one I work at that insists on their staff wearing stock that has arrived in the last 3 weeks, although this isnt allowed staff want to keep their part time position so they do what is asked.

    • GLO on 08/10/2017 - 17:22

      Hi dc4207,

      How do you claim the 'non compulsory' amount?

      Thanks in advance.

  • ozbjunkie on 06/10/2017 - 16:21

    So low, should steal items just for payback. Sell on ebay.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join