coffee shop expenses

Monsoon

Self employed writer sits in Starbucks because it's easy to think and write there. Is the cost of coffee and cinnamon swirls (mmm!) etc allowable?

It's not necessarily subsisence - she would have to purchase something to be allowed to sit in the space which is the main reason she is there.

I did google but can't find anything along these lines. Am guessing HMRC would call subsistence and duality of purpose but worth a thought!

T.C.

In a word "no". I can't see how you could justify that. No-one pays for my coffee at home or indeed my coffee if I meet with a client at a coffee shop.

Monsoon

Good. Know the client will query it when I say it's disallowable so at least I've made the effort!

One more return down....

Thanks

T.C.

Glad to be of assistance. Now perhaps it is time for a coffee myself!

Monsoon

Good plan. I put the kettle on an hour ago then clean forgot about it!!

anniem

Shame ... I was wondering if I could move my office into the local starbucks too

Monsoon

yeah would be nice wouldn't it?!

PGM

At work we have tea and coffee as a business expense. Outside catering goes down as a business expense, so why not Starbucks coffee? Could argue the high cost of beverages is offset against the totally free use of the "office"?.

Bluewednesday

I've allowed coffee if they are far away from home on business but if they are using the local coffee shop then I don't allow it.

I suspect this is a local one so would disallow it and would certainly disallow for the reason, I only allow for people working away from home as stated above.

Monsoon

Same discussion on Aweb - some interesting views! Years ago I'd have allowed it (with a warning to the client), I do feel I'm getting more straightlaced in my old age (worrying, as I'm only 31!)

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/anyanswers/coffee-shop-quickie-question/476018

payrollpro

With these I tend to try and stick with the rules which apply to employees but without the "necessarily" bit of the WEN principle. In my view the scenario satisfies the wholly, but probably not the exclusively bits, however, you could argue that if the person did nothing other than work then the purchases were both wholly and exclusively. An employee would not get away with it because it fails the necessarily rule but sole traders have a bit more flexibility.

What I am finding most difficult is the principle of putting starbucks and coffee in the same sentence and coming up with somewhere to drink! I thought people only drank starbucks if it was some sort of punishment.

PGM

payrollpro wrote: »

What I am finding most difficult is the principle of putting starbucks and coffee in the same sentence and coming up with somewhere to drink! I thought people only drank starbucks if it was some sort of punishment.

Theres a lot of worse places!

I still think I'd allow it, maybe the writer gets inspiration working in various places.