This is the subject we most often have to say no to, and the one creators are most surprised by. The logic looks watertight: I bought this set for a shoot, I wear it nowhere else, so it is a business expense. Fiscally it does not work that way.
Clothing is explicitly excluded in Dutch income tax. Not because the legislator wants to make life hard for creators, but because clothing is an expense everyone has, business or not. The law draws that line hard, with one narrow exception.
The rule: clothing is not deductible
For most creators that is the whole answer. Clothing you buy falls under the costs that are not, or only partly, deductible, regardless of how you use it. A dress that only ever appears in your content is still clothing.
There is an exception for work clothing, but the conditions are strict. Clothing qualifies as work clothing only when it is exclusively or almost exclusively suitable for wearing at work, or when it carries a clearly visible logo or company marking of a certain minimum size.
For a mechanic's overall or a jacket with a company name on it that is clear. For virtually anything a creator puts on in front of a camera it is not: it is clothing you could in theory wear outside, and that is precisely the criterion it fails on.
The exception creators can use
Where it turns is with things that are no longer clothing but props. Think of:
- Costumes and dress-up sets you would not wear as clothing
- Props and set pieces for a shoot or set
- Wigs, masks and other character items
- Special outfits that clearly do not exist outside the context of your content
What counts here is not your intention but the nature of the object. The question to ask yourself: would an independent outsider see this as ordinary clothing, or as something that only exists in a production? In the first case it is not a cost; in the second it is.
And this is the category creators structurally forget. We see records with tens of thousands of euro in turnover containing not a single prop, while the content is full of sets, backdrops and objects. That is money left on the table because someone once said clothing is not deductible and the conclusion was drawn too widely.
Make-up, grooming and treatments
The same line, with a slightly different emphasis. Ordinary make-up and grooming products are private, even if you use them before the camera goes on. They are expenses you would have without a business.
What sits differently:
- A make-up artist you hire for a shoot. That is a service bought in, and it is a business cost. Keep the invoice.
- Special effects or theatrical make-up you do not use outside a production.
- Products you buy to review where the review is the assignment. Then you are buying in for your work. Note that keeping and using them afterwards is a private withdrawal.
Cosmetic procedures and treatments are a category we are deliberately strict about. The starting point is that this is private, because it concerns your body and the effect persists outside your work. There are rare situations where a different outcome is defensible, and they are all specific and substantiated. Anyone wanting to make a deduction of this on a general argument is setting themselves up for a correction plus a discussion you do not want to have.
Why deducting wrongly costs more than not deducting
It is tempting to think: I will put it in, and if they strike it, they strike it. That is a bad bet, for two reasons.
On a correction you pay the tax you should have paid, plus interest for the period you held the money. For an item that clearly does not belong, a penalty can come on top. And a return with one item removed from it often gets a second look at the rest, including the items that were fine.
The arithmetic is therefore unfavourable. Claiming a 3,000 euro wardrobe gains you a few hundred euro if it stands. If it is struck, the gain is gone, you pay interest, and you have a file. That is not a good ratio.
What to do instead
For most creators the gain is not in clothing but in the items next to it, which are far larger and fully deductible. Concretely:
- Equipment and lighting, often the largest item of all
- Sets, backdrops, furniture belonging to the set, props
- Services bought in: photographer, editor, make-up artist
- The space you record in, see deducting a workspace at home
- Travel and accommodation around a content day, see travel costs and content days
In practice we see that a creator who tracks these five well realises more deduction than someone who claims their whole wardrobe and loses most of it again.
A worked example
Two creators, both with 50,000 euro of turnover.
The first claims 4,200 euro of clothing plus 1,500 euro of equipment. In an audit the clothing falls away. Deduction: 1,500 euro, plus a correction and interest on the rest.
The second claims no clothing, but does claim 1,500 euro of equipment, 900 euro of props and sets, 1,200 euro of services bought in, 1,100 euro of depreciation and 480 euro of travel. Deduction: 5,180 euro, and nothing that invites a discussion.
The second gets more deduction from items that hold up. That is the whole point of this article.
Telling a prop from clothing in your own records
The line is sometimes clear and sometimes not, which means you have to document it yourself at the moment of purchase. Afterwards, every purchase is a matter of memory.
What works is one line with the receipt carrying three things: what it is, what you bought it for, and whether it exists outside your content. For instance: "latex costume, set for series X, not wearable outside shoots". That is not a trick, it is the substantiation you need when there is doubt.
A practical test that corresponds well with how this is viewed: would you find this object in a normal clothing shop, or at a costume or theatrical supplier? That is not a statutory criterion, but it predicts the outcome fairly well.
Sets and decor: the item that is the real money
For many creators there is more deduction here than there ever was in clothing, and it structurally goes unrecorded:
- Backdrop fabrics, panels, rails and the systems to hang them
- Furniture belonging to the set and not to your living room
- Sheets, cushions and textiles specifically for shoots
- Decoration, plants and objects that appear on camera
- Acoustic panels and sound damping
- Storage systems for equipment and props
Most of these stay under the investment threshold and are therefore fully deductible in the year of purchase. For a creator setting up a space once, this easily runs to more than a thousand euro in a year. See deduct or depreciate for where that threshold sits.
If you hire a make-up artist or stylist
This is the route that does work for the subject of this article. Make-up you buy yourself is private; a make-up artist you hire for a shoot is a service bought in and fully deductible. The same goes for a stylist, a photographer and an assistant.
What you need is an invoice, and in this profession that is not always produced unprompted. Ask for one, even for a small fee and even when it is someone you know. Without an invoice it is not a cost, however real the expense was. If someone works for you structurally for a fee, there is a second question: is this an assignment or in fact employment? That distinction follows from the facts and can produce an assessment, so with an ongoing arrangement it is worth a conversation before it has run a year.
Frequently asked questions
I have an outfit with my own logo on it. Is that work clothing?
Possibly, because a clearly visible company marking is exactly what the exception turns on. Conditions apply to the size and visibility of that marking, so have the specific situation assessed before you make it a structural item.
I buy lingerie I genuinely only wear on set. Can I not make that plausible?
The point is that the test is not what you do with it, but whether the object by its nature is only suitable for work. Lingerie is not, however consistent your use. That is an unsatisfying answer, and it is the right one.
What if I buy something for a shoot and throw it away afterwards?
That does not change the nature of the object. For props it is different, because those were never clothing.
Can I at least reclaim the VAT on these purchases?
VAT and income tax do not move in step. For VAT the question is whether you use the purchase for your business, and that can come out differently. Have this looked at per situation rather than turning it into one rule.
In closing
Clothing is almost never deductible. Props, sets and services bought in are, and those get forgotten more often than clothing gets claimed. If you want to apply discipline in one place, apply it there.
We walk through this assessment with every client at year-end, for creators on OnlyFans, F2F and beyond.