Clothing - the abnormal expenditure test
A deduction may be allowed for clothes, which are not 'necessary or peculiar'.
Where the taxpayer's occupation imposes a recognised obligation to provide a wardrobe which might be regarded as 'in excess' of normal, everyday requirements...
Or where the duties of the occupation result in the need for the clothing to be replaced more frequently than normal
In other words, expenditure will be abnormal when because of the job

You need more clothes than others do
You must replace them more often
Mannequins/models would accumulate clothing and accessories beyond their ordinary requirements - they would need more clothes than others
So will television newsreaders, but they will also have to replace their clothes more often due to make - up stains, etc - so they would fit both categories of abnormal expenditure
A plain clothes police officer will have to replace his suits frequently due to wear and tear - category
The full Federal Court thought so in FCT v Edwards (1994) 28 ATR 87.Refer CCH Master Tax Guide 14-180. But don't get too ambitious about making such claims. The Commissioner expressed his reluctance to allow such deductions to general taxpayers in ruling TR 94/22
![]()
Answer this question....
Would the following constitute abnormal expenditure on clothes? Female office worker - cost of replacing stockings ruined by contact with office furniture
Yes No
![]()
The appeals tribunals have not been prepared to accept this as abnormal expenditure
![]()
Answer this question....
Would this amount to abnormal expenditure on clothes bus driver ruins shoes changing tyres and by contact with dieseline on the garage floor
Yes No
![]()
This would amount to abnormal expenditure
While some of the tribunal decisions may seem to apply these tests in a more rigorous way than others, if you can show that
Outgoings on clothing are incurred as a result of requirements by the employer,
Or because of the conditions under which the duties are performed
Then grounds would exist for making a claim - refer CCH Master Tax Guide - para 14-180
For example, a steel - worker was refused a claim for the cost of washing clothes impregnated with grease and oil separately from the rest of the family wash by the board - even though the Commissioner had allowed a claim of $30
It would not usually said that the cost of clothes was an expense incurred in gaining income. It is a prerequisite to gaining the income
![]()
Answer this question....
a bank accountant claims a deduction for the cost of 2 suits, which he would not have purchased if he did not work for the bank. Is a deduction allowable?
Yes No
![]()
The suits would be neither 'necessary & peculiar' nor 'abnormal expenditure'
![]()