Expense Firearm

[JohnH]

Thanks Bart. I prefer the hybrid mode because it's more condensed, but sometimes I forget to switch when the thread gets confusing. That's a good reminder. (Much better than pulling out my tax-deductible AK-47 and blowing the screen away in frustration).

[thomtax]

You may already know this (I think some posters don't), but if you change the "Display Mode" at the top of the page to "Linear Mode" instead of "Hybrid" or "Threaded" then all posts will appear in the time order they were posted.

I use Linear Mode all the time as it's much less confusing and easier to keep track of who is the last poster on a thread and they are listed sequentially. Actually I find it hard to understand the pattern of the other two modes.

Thanks BB. No, I am one of the dumb ones that not realize the option.

LT

[taxea]

Good luck to those of you who choose to take the deduction. Let us know if it comes up for audit. I'm sure we all would like to know the IRS response.
taxea

[veritas]

Chances are

this would never fly in audit. The fact is most auditors would be anti-gun to start with.

[S T]

Facts and Circumstances

IMHO, this is a facts and circumstance scenario, as well as whether or not an ordinary and necessary business expense. And then if t/p is selected for audit, how the auditor would look at it.

Disclosures might be warranted, and I don't know how much a "gun" cost is, but we are not talking $1,000's of dollars here. We are talking principal and whether or not the deduction should or should not appear on the return. And under the scenario of a taxpayer that has rentals in high crime areas or a business client that files Schedule C, Form 1065 or 1120, do we deduct as a regular expense or list on a depreciation schedule or a Sect 179 expense?

What really is the tax savings versus the exposure to audit?

Wouldn't this be the decision of each tax preparer and their client. This has been a welcomed discussion to provide insight for tax preparers and some guidance on how each of us should discuss with our taxpayer client.

Another one of those areas that there is no definitive!

Sandy

[Black Bart]

John/Thom -- Display Modes

LT:
The way the thread links together, it's possible to confuse your earlier post and mine which followed yours. I was the one who brought up the police officer and taxea just mixed up the comments. At first I thought he was replying to both of us in the same post, but after re-reading it I see it's a simple mix-up...

.

You may already know this (I think some posters don't), but if you change the "Display Mode" at the top of the page to "Linear Mode" instead of "Hybrid" or "Threaded" then all posts will appear in the time order they were posted.

I use Linear Mode all the time as it's much less confusing and easier to keep track of who is the last poster on a thread and they are listed sequentially. Actually I find it hard to understand the pattern of the other two modes.

[Zee]

The insurance agents/rental agents we're talking about are making their rounds in high
crime areas of a city, places that the milkman, PUS driver, Mary Kay, etc don't even go.
And the postal carrier who must go is very selective.

Of course, my post was an exaggeration, but I can assure you UPS and the Post office delivers in high crime areas, and political workers visit high crime areas (my son worked on the Obama campaign, and visited high crime areas each day for several weeks). H&R Block has offices in high crime areas.

My point was simple. Many people deliver services in high crime areas that does not make carrying a handgun a reasonable & necessary business expense any more than having to wear a Rolex watch to impress clients in a extremely affluent area.

IMHO, in the situation described, it's a personal safety issue and a personal expense. I wouldn't recommend the deduction. If the client insisted, I'd advise him a disclosure would be required or suggest he take his business elsewhere.

[ChEAr$]

Not necessarily so

I disagree with deducting the cost of a handgun for an insurance agent. If it's ok for an insurance agent, I would think a deduction would be permissable for almost any self-employed individual working in any public area. An insurance agent is no more at risk than a milkman, postal carrier, UPS Driver, Mary Kay representative, Tupperware rep, bible-thumper rep, political pollster, newspaper carrier, magazine salesman, etc.

The insurance agents/rental agents we're talking about are making their rounds in high
crime areas of a city, places that the milkman, PUS driver, Mary Kay, etc don't even go.
And the postal carrier who must go is very selective.

[JohnH]

so sorry John H...that was meant for Thomtax and everyone else reading this posting. taxea

I appreciate the sentiment, but no apology needed or expected. I'm mainly interested in the ideas expressed here, wherever they originate and no matter who's being replied to.

[JohnH]

LT:
The way the thread links together, it's possible to confuse your earlier post and mine which followed yours. I was the one who brought up the police officer and taxea just mixed up the comments. At first I thought he was replying to both of us in the same post, but after re-reading it I see it's a simple mix-up. I just kept following the ideas expressed on the thread without really trying to parse it that carefully.

Don't get offended - the discussion in general is too interesting to get bogged down on a little detail about who is responding to whom. Nobody is getting personal.

[thomtax]

so sorry John H...that was meant for Thomtax and everyone else reading this posting. taxea

Taxea, you keep refering to me in your postings and as far as I can determine, without a good reason. As I told you in and earlier post, your critical reply was about a post that I did not make, something about a police officer or something.

Is there some reason that you feel you need to keep taking shots at me? (No pun intended)

LT

[Zee]

I disagree with deducting the cost of a handgun for an insurance agent. If it's ok for an insurance agent, I would think a deduction would be permissable for almost any self-employed individual working in any public area. An insurance agent is no more at risk than a milkman, postal carrier, UPS Driver, Mary Kay representative, Tupperware rep, bible-thumper rep, political pollster, newspaper carrier, magazine salesman, etc.

[BHoffman]

In this case, I think the gun should be written off. Would the client buy and carry it if not for his business need, or is he a hobby shooter looking for a write off? Does he keep a mileage log that shows he travels in tough parts of town? Crime statistics are available.

Completely agree with veritas. Under .40 is like writing off a chihuahua as security expense

[taxea]

so sorry John H...that was meant for Thomtax and everyone else reading this posting. taxea

[Black Bart]

Ordinary and necessary

Many years ago my plantation owner employer bought a $1,000 Beretta over-and-under shotgun and instructed me to post it as "security expense." While he didn't say if he considered ducks a threat (think President Carter's "killer rabbit"), he maintained it was quite "ordinary" for his friends to carry such in their pickups and certainly felt it was "necessary" in his social circle ("I can't show up at a hunt with an $85 Mossberg!").