Glasses and so on again

[erchess]

I almost posted this to the thread on glasses but I decided the angle is different and therefore belongs in its own likely much shorter thread.

Before I knew anything about tax deductions I knew two people I need to tell you about. One sold real estate for Century 21 and he wore those goshawful canary yellow coats to church and as far as I knew everywhere else he wore a sportcoat and tie. The other person needed prescription lenses but was required to wear "safety glasses" at work and he chose to own no other glasses and to wear his safety glasses whenever he was not in bed.

In the other thread I picked up the conclusion that hearing aids and normal glasses are considered by US Tax Law to be personal expenses even if used only for business purposes. What I want to know is whether this cuts both ways. Does someone who buys and uses at work items that are in the eyes of the code obviously not suitable for street wear and yet DOES wear them on the street, must the tax deduction be reduced or eliminated?

[appelman]

Glasses and so on again

Well, as a practical matter, in the case of the yellow coat, I don't think the IRS is going to monitor his activities to find out when and where he wore it. He could make a pretty good case that it wasn't suitable for everyday use. He needn't add that he was a bit nutty and DID wear it off the job. My own take on safety glasses is that they would not be a business deduction, unless they were goggles or something similar that really weren't suitable for everyday use. I draw from personal experience in a 35 yr career as a research chemist, when my prescription safety glasses WERE my primary glasses for general use. On the other hand, I had a pair of didymium-tinted safety glasses for glass blowing that were clearly work related. My understanding is that the criterion is really the same as for uniforms. To be deductible as a business expense they must either be unsuitable for off-work use, or their off-work use must be prohibited (e.g. reservists' uniforms).

[JON]

Age

I, I mean someone I know like me, can not stand glasses, but needs them. Years ago I have started not using glasses for close work as my multilevel glasses mean cranking my head around(bobblehead). So they gave me/him an option that THEY said had become common. If there is some standard distance you are away from monitors they can give me/my friend, corrective glasses for that exact distance. If I/my friend, would have done that I would have deducted that cost as a business expense. I/my friend, still have glasses on the top of my/his head for the most of day and then have a hard time finding my/his glasses at the end of the day.

Age is just a state of mind that you will soon forget.

[taxxcpa]

Uniforms

I almost posted this to the thread on glasses but I decided the angle is different and therefore belongs in its own likely much shorter thread.

Before I knew anything about tax deductions I knew two people I need to tell you about. One sold real estate for Century 21 and he wore those goshawful canary yellow coats to church and as far as I knew everywhere else he wore a sportcoat and tie. The other person needed prescription lenses but was required to wear "safety glasses" at work and he chose to own no other glasses and to wear his safety glasses whenever he was not in bed.

In the other thread I picked up the conclusion that hearing aids and normal glasses are considered by US Tax Law to be personal expenses even if used only for business purposes. What I want to know is whether this cuts both ways. Does someone who buys and uses at work items that are in the eyes of the code obviously not suitable for street wear and yet DOES wear them on the street, must the tax deduction be reduced or eliminated?

A uniform is deductible as a business expense or employee business expense. I don't think wearing them when NOT working; i.e. on the street, would make them non-deductible. The same would apply to safety shoes or similar items. I would think that something designed strictly for business use would be deductible. Something designed for other reasons would not qualify even if used exclusively for business.

I believe a military uniform would be an employee business expense, but probably would not cost more than the 2% deduction. Of course it could be more if you were a buck private, but then you would probably have so few itemized deductions you would not be too likely to itemize. Some officers and married NCOs probably itemize and could deduct the uniform if they spent enough to get over the 2%.

[JohnH]

Deductibility of military uniforms is tricky - you can deduct them only if you are prohibited from wearing them off duty. This applies even to utility uniforms. However, uniform attachments & accessories, such as insignia of rank, corps devices, epaulets, lanyards, aiguillettes, and swords are deductible regardless of whether or not the uniform itself is deductible.

(Personally I think this should be changed - military uniforms expenses over and above reimbursed amounts should be fully deductible above the line. This is the least a grateful nation should for for it service members)

[ChEAr$]

Age is just a state of mind that you will soon forget.

Great! I'm going to try to remember that. (grin

[gkaiseril]

For some in the military, there is a non-taxable uniform maintenance allowance.

[appelman]

Uniforms, etc.

JohnH is correct. For chapter & verse see Pub. 529, pp. 7-8. Two cases in particular are informative:

In the most famous one, the performer Dinah Shore claimed a business deduction for an expensive gown she had made for her performances. The IRS disallowed it. She wore the gown into tax court and demonstrated that it was so tight she could not sit down in it. The court allowed the deduction.

In another case, a saleswoman at an upscale women's clothing store was required to purchase and wear at work some very expensive high-end dresses. She could not imagine ever wearing them in her outside life and claimed a business expense deduction. The tax court ruled that the dresses were, in fact, suitable for use outside work, and that the fact that her particular lifestyle precluded their being so used was irrelevant. The deduction was disallowed.

Unfortunately, "fairness" does not appear to be a consistent factor in the development and interpretation of the tax code.

[erchess]

Those Glasses

The glasses I mentioned had temple shields and all around the lenses a little flange, both designed to protect the eyes from flying material. Of course the lenses were also shatter resistant. I would not have been caught dead wearing them off the job but hey to each his own. I would personally deduct them if this guy were a client today.

[gkaiseril]

Safety equipment can get special treatment.