Appearance Clothing

[veritas]

That's a good one

I prepared returns for two strippers, and had no trouble taking their costumes as an expense!!!

I actually came across an EA on the web who specializes in that particular type of entertainer. I can't give the link because some might find it offensive.

[veritas]

Another fun one

was Oswald "Ozzie" Nelson and family.

Nelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1966-224

Here's an excerpt:

"In their television series, "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet," the petitioners, along with their two sons, portrayed an average American family, with certain reasonable exaggerations."

[New York Enrolled Agent]

That is a general guideline, and it is not written in the code. Of course, nurses' uniforms, health care workers, and many others do not have the actual name of any employer on them, but they are deductible. Pub 17 also states that musicians and entertainers can deduct the cost of theatrical clothing and accessories that are not suitable for "everyday wear."

Do you realize at one time nurses uniforms, baseball player uniforms, railway trainmen uniforms and others were NOT deductible? Police officer uniforms were not deductible until 1943 when the Tax Court ruled in Benson 2 TC 12. After the Benson case, the Tax Court allowed a deduction for nurses uniforms in Meier 2 TC 458.

The allowance for clothing is mixed. You might want to also look at Loinaz TC Memo 1975-17 and Popov TC Memo 1998-374. In those cases the judges allowed some items to be deducted.

[Burke]

where is it written that the employer's name or other info has to be on the outside? Someone could have a self promoting message embroidered on the inside and they could get a deduction for the clothes and this would hold up until Congress changed things.

That is a general guideline, and it is not written in the code. Of course, nurses' uniforms, health care workers, and many others do not have the actual name of any employer on them, but they are deductible. Pub 17 also states that musicians and entertainers can deduct the cost of theatrical clothing and accessories that are not suitable for "everyday wear." So that covers them, and most performing artists by inference, I would presume. The regulation that it must be required by the employer would not apply to a self-employed, independent contractor paid by the booking. But the circumstances and venue of the appearance would dictate what type of clothing must be worn. In the words of our famous ex-President, It looks like what you determine the definition of "everyday wear" and "performing artist" is. Thanks to all for the cites. Interesting.

[solomon]

Wardrobe:
To deduct clothes as a business expense, two requirements must be met. First, the clothes MUST be required by the employer. Second, clothes must not be adaptable to street or general use.

Expenses for costumes and "period" clothing are generally deductable. However, most union contracts provide for compensation to be given to performers who require special wear. The taxpayer must prove that his or her contact did not include such reimbursement for the expense to be allowable.


No deduction is allowed for wardrobe, general make-up or hair styles for auditions, job interviews or "to mantain an image."

Remember the MSSPs are for the auditors to try to train them what to do.

The Courts follow those criteria.

[JON]

MSSP-Entertainment

Wardrobe:
To deduct clothes as a business expense, two requirements must be met. First, the clothes MUST be required by the employer. Second, clothes must not be adaptable to street or general use.

Expenses for costumes and "period" clothing are generally deductable. However, most union contracts provide for compensation to be given to performers who require special wear. The taxpayer must prove that his or her contact did not include such reimbursement for the expense to be allowable.


No deduction is allowed for wardrobe, general make-up or hair styles for auditions, job interviews or "to mantain an image."

Remember the MSSPs are for the auditors to try to train them what to do.

[TAXBILLY]

Deductiblity of work clothes for an individual are restricted by the "not suitable for everyday wear" caveat. Pub 17 even discounts the white bib overalls worn by a painter, and the blue work clothes purchased by a welder. I have always used the definition of "uniform" to classify deductible clothing as having the name of the company, etc labeled on them. My question concerns clothing (which may encompass evening gowns and formal wear) required for appearances by a celebrity whose main income is from public speaking/appearances.

The rock band in question was Rod Stewart's but I don't have the cite.
taxbilly

[travis bickle]

Thanks for the quick response

A quick look through Kleinrock's Federal Tax expert turned up the following cases which are not the two I mentioned. They are however the root cases for entertainers and musicians.

20/ Fisher v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 218 (1954), aff'd, 230 F.2d 79 (7th Cir. 1956); Nelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1966-224.

I got the two I mentioned out of either Quickfinder the last year I used them or TTB the first time I used them. My memory is hazy but last year was either my first or second year with TTB. If anyone with TTB feels like checking the record and posting the first year I used TTB I don't mind.

Of course you are aware that there are broadly speaking two tests and both must be satisfied. The clothes must be absolutely required for the job and in one case the request of a foreman was held not to be enough for a worker. The clothes must also be not suitable for street wear and the only ironclad rule seems to be that the worker's name or the name of the firm or the union will satisfy this requirement but on the other hand if these are lacking the system may be open to the taxpayer's argument.

I will have to take a look at the above cites when I am literally not falling asleep.

To Gary --

yes, I have done a few exotic dancers also; and, obviously, no problem with their costumes.

[Gary]

No Problem

I prepared returns for two strippers, and had no trouble taking their costumes as an expense!!!

[DonPriebe]

(Non-tax) Symphony Dress Code

There was a case several years ago where a member of some Symphony lost deductions for most of the clothing she wears while performing. even though she does in fact not wear on the street any of the outerwear items that she wears to performances. However she was able to convince the court that the orchestra wanted her to wear a blouse with many sequins and that these sequins made the blouses unsuitable for street wear.

Our dress code is just the opposite. The rationale is that jewelery or flashy garb tends to distract the audience from the music. This applies to to orchestra and choral support, but not to soloists.

There was much discussion about ear rings for male performers. The final outcome was nicknamed the "discrete stud rule" I believe that "stud" referred to to jewelry, not the wearer.

[veritas]

Rhinestones on clothing

There was a case several years ago where a member of some Symphony lost deductions for most of the clothing she wears while performing. even though she does in fact not wear on the street any of the outerwear items that she wears to performances. However she was able to convince the court that the orchestra wanted her to wear a blouse with many sequins and that these sequins made the blouses unsuitable for street wear. Before that there was a case in which members of a rock band of some kind were able to convince the court to let them deduct expenses for all their performance clothes because these clothes were too gaudy and garish for street wear. However I don't see how either of these cases shields a garden variety tux even if it is in fact worn only during paid performances.

are helpful. I believe Liberace had some success.

[solomon]

TC 2008-132 Summary partially dealt with clothing.

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/GONZA9LEZ.SUM.WPD.pdf

[joanmcq]

I heard of one celebrity winning a case for a gown that she was literally stiched into, after proving it was so tight she could not sit down. But besides that one, no.

[erchess]

Travis

A quick look through Kleinrock's Federal Tax expert turned up the following cases which are not the two I mentioned. They are however the root cases for entertainers and musicians.

20/ Fisher v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 218 (1954), aff'd, 230 F.2d 79 (7th Cir. 1956); Nelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1966-224.

I got the two I mentioned out of either Quickfinder the last year I used them or TTB the first time I used them. My memory is hazy but last year was either my first or second year with TTB. If anyone with TTB feels like checking the record and posting the first year I used TTB I don't mind.

Of course you are aware that there are broadly speaking two tests and both must be satisfied. The clothes must be absolutely required for the job and in one case the request of a foreman was held not to be enough for a worker. The clothes must also be not suitable for street wear and the only ironclad rule seems to be that the worker's name or the name of the firm or the union will satisfy this requirement but on the other hand if these are lacking the system may be open to the taxpayer's argument.

[travis bickle]

Just so that I can keep things straight

There was a case several years ago where a member of some Symphony lost deductions for most of the clothing she wears while performing. even though she does in fact not wear on the street any of the outerwear items that she wears to performances. However she was able to convince the court that the orchestra wanted her to wear a blouse with many sequins and that these sequins made the blouses unsuitable for street wear. Before that there was a case in which members of a rock band of some kind were able to convince the court to let them deduct expenses for all their performance clothes because these clothes were too gaudy and garish for street wear. However I don't see how either of these cases shields a garden variety tux even if it is in fact worn only during paid performances.

because I have had clients with this very type of issue -- can/will you please list some citation(s) which form the basis for the above?

Thanks in advance,