What is deductible clothes for work

[ruthes]

We had an interesting question come up at work and I cannot find a definitive answer.
Shoes that are required for work, like in fast food, that have non-skid soles.
Deductible or not?

[FEDUKE404]

Answer

From Publication 17:

Work Clothes and Uniforms

You can deduct the cost and upkeep of work clothes if the following two requirements are met.

-- You must wear them as a condition of your employment.

-- The clothes are not suitable for everyday wear.


Many people regularly wear non-slip shoes. Steel-toed boots or non-conducting shoes for electricians fall into a different category.

FE

[Jen]

Clothing which is not presentable for everyday wear

Clothing is a difficult issue for our clients to understand. Bottom line, if the clothing is acceptable for everyday wear, it is not a tax deduction. Clothing with logo's on them, physicians scrubs, nursing scrubs, lab coats - these are all types of clothing or "uniforms" which ARE deductible. Also, rodeo clown gear and possibly wetsuits for professional divers or surfers - but not the board shorts or T-shirts when out of the water. As for Actors/Actresses and their black-tie events... those $1,000 gowns they buy are not deductible. They are considered 'able to be worn by any average individual in a public setting.' The suit for that weatherman, not deductible... it's just an ordinary suit... doesn't matter that he HAS to wear a suit.

Shoes can be tricky. Deductible shoes generally fall under the scope of Safety shoes - and that is generally your police and fire shoes, steel toe boots for construction workers. Non-skid shoes sound more like tennis shoes and won't fly in an IRS exam.

I'd say for your case in a fast food restaurant there are no employee business expenses. Those employers generally provide everything. They may have a requirement you wear black, blue, or khaki pants - or perhaps shorts of a certain length - but basically you are wearing your everyday clothes - same ones you likely wear on the weekend.

[S T]

Depends on whether or not the deduction is qualified first - but take a look at the other side and how the 1040-Sched A works. As an employee would be 2106 - transferring to Sched A - subject to 2% reduction. That is if the t/p has any benefit to filing Sched A above the Standard Deduction

As a condition of employment - what OSHA requires and Employer requires, I would probably allow - if the employment agreement and handbook so state.

Whether or not a benefit on the tax return is another matter.

Sandy

[FEDUKE404]

Still don't see it as an allowable expense

Depends on whether or not the deduction is qualified first - but take a look at the other side and how the 1040-Sched A works. As an employee would be 2106 - transferring to Sched A - subject to 2% reduction. That is if the t/p has any benefit to filing Sched A above the Standard Deduction

As a condition of employment - what OSHA requires and Employer requires, I would probably allow - if the employment agreement and handbook so state.

Whether or not a benefit on the tax return is another matter.

Sandy

While I see your point (itemize/2% haircut) I think to go that route first is somewhat avoiding the question.

From the facts presented in the OP, I do not see how the shoes could in any way be deemed a "uniform" or even "safety equipment." I put that employer requirement in the same category as making all wait staff wear long sleeves or black pants. On the opposite side of the equation, where an employee IS required to wear a uniform with a company logo, those are generally provided by the employer. If the employee is actually charged for those, then I would consider that a valid employee expense subject to the limitations stated for claiming such.

By taking that position up front, it prevents such scenarios as "MY tax preparer said it might help me, except...." when the employees start talking tax matters among themselves.

FE

[smithtax]

Although a business wardrobe is a necessary condition of employment, the cost of the wardrobe is generally considered a nondeductible personal expense under Code Sec. 262 (Kennedy v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 1970-58, aff'd, 451 F.2d 1023 (3d Cir. 1971)). The general rule is that where business clothes are suitable for general wear, no deduction is allowed (Donnelly v. Comm'r, 262 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1959), aff'g 28 T.C. 1278 (1957); Hynes v. Comm'r, 74 T.C. 1266 (1980); Roth v. Comm'r, 17 T.C. 1450 (1952)). Such costs are not deductible even when it has been shown that the particular clothes would not have been purchased but for the employment (Stiner v. U.S., 524 F.2d 640 (10th Cir. 1975)).

However, employees can deduct the cost and maintenance of work clothes if:

(1) the employee is required to wear the clothes as a condition of employment; and

(2) the clothes are not suitable for everyday wear (Rev. Rul. 70-474).

Examples of workers who may be able to deduct the cost and maintenance of work clothes are:

(1) delivery workers;

(2) firefighters (Rev. Rul. 70-474);

(3) health care workers (Kennedy v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 1973-15; Bickel v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 1966-202; Rev. Rul. 70-474);

(4) law enforcement officers (Comm'r v. Benson, 146 F2d 191 (9th Cir. 1944); Rev. Rul. 70-474);

(5) letter carriers (Rev. Rul. 70-474);

(6) professional athletes (Rev. Ruls. 70-475, 70-476);

(7) scrubs worn by doctors, nurses, hospital personnel, or others required to wear scrubs for work (Crawford v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 1993-192);

(8) transportation workers (uniformed airline workers, railway workers, bus drivers, etc.) (Farrior v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 1970-312; Rev. Rul. 70-474); and

(9) over-the-road truck driver (coveralls, hard hat liner, rain gear, safety glasses, steel toed boots, winter work boots, work gloves) (Nolder v. Comm'r, T.C. Summary 2012-50 (2012)).

The cost and maintenance of work clothing that is not distinctive in character or in the nature of a uniform is not deductible, even if the employee is required to wear it. For example, the cost and maintenance of blue work clothes or coveralls are not deductible business expenses, but rather represent nondeductible personal expenses (Rev. Rul. 57-143). Similarly, a news anchor could not deduct expenses relating to the purchase of conservative business clothes required to maintain a professional image even if she considered them unsuitable for everyday wear (Hamper v. Comm'r, T.C. Summary 2011-17).

Generally, the courts apply an objective test in determining whether clothing is suitable for everyday use, and therefore nondeductible (Stiner v. U.S., 524 F. 2d 640 (10th Cir. 1975); Donnelly v. Comm'r, 262 F. 2d 411 (2d Cir. 1959)). Under an objective test, no reference is made to the individual taxpayer's lifestyle or personal taste; instead, adaptability for personal or general use depends on what is generally accepted for ordinary street wear. However, the Tax Court took into account a fashion professional's personal lifestyle and concluded that, based on that lifestyle, the high-fashion clothing she was required to wear while at work was not suitable for everyday wear (Yeomans v. Comm'r, 30 T.C. 757 (1958), nonacq.). At least one court has rejected the Tax Court's use of such a subjective standard (Pevsner v. Comm'r, 628 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1980), rev'g T.C. Memo. 1979-311).

Individuals who are on full-time active duty in the armed forces generally can deduct the cost of equipment only to the extent:

(1) the cost exceeds nontaxable allowances the individual received for the equipment;

(2) the equipment is especially required by his or her profession; and

(3) the equipment does not merely take the place of articles required in civilian life (Reg. Sec. 1.262-1(b)(8)).

Thus, for example, the cost of a sword is an allowable deduction in computing taxable income, but the cost of a uniform is not (Reg. Sec. 1.262-1(b)(8)).

In contrast, armed forces reservists can deduct the unreimbursed cost of their uniforms, provided that military regulations restrict them from wearing their uniforms except while on duty as a reservist (Rev. Rul. 67-115). The deduction is reduced by any nontaxable allowance the reservist receives for these expenses.

Students at an armed forces academy cannot deduct the cost of their uniforms if they replace regular clothing; however, they can deduct the cost of insignia, shoulder boards, and related items. Civilian faculty or staff members of a military school can deduct the cost of their uniforms (Rev. Rul. 59-119).

[Burke]

Generally, the courts apply an objective test in determining whether clothing is suitable for everyday use, and therefore nondeductible (Stiner v. U.S., 524 F. 2d 640 (10th Cir. 1975); Donnelly v. Comm'r, 262 F. 2d 411 (2d Cir. 1959)). Under an objective test, no reference is made to the individual taxpayer's lifestyle or personal taste; instead, adaptability for personal or general use depends on what is generally accepted for ordinary street wear. However, the Tax Court took into account a fashion professional's personal lifestyle and concluded that, based on that lifestyle, the high-fashion clothing she was required to wear while at work was not suitable for everyday wear (Yeomans v. Comm'r, 30 T.C. 757 (1958), nonacq.). At least one court has rejected the Tax Court's use of such a subjective standard (Pevsner v. Comm'r, 628 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1980), rev'g T.C. Memo. 1979-311).

Excellent post and cites. This is the only one that poses a problem. It's hard to maintain that the use and purchase of evening gowns/tuxedos for a performance artist or celebrity as clothes suitable for everyday wear. If they ever used them for other than public, paid appearances, they should be able to discount for personal use. I would have a problem with "high-fashion" wear, whatever that means. Note the opposing court opinions which do not help.

[Roberts]

A waiter forced to wear a tuxedo would qualify as formal wear not normally worn in every day life IMO. That would qualify as a uniform, no?

[appelman]

I seem to recall a famous case involving Dinah Shore.

She claimed a deduction for an expensive gown used in her performances. The IRS disallowed the deduction. Ms. Shore then demonstrated to the Tax Court that the gown was so tight that she was unable to sit down while wearing it, and the IRS disallowal was overruled.

[joanmcq]

I was just telling my employee about the Dinah Shore case today! I believe she was sewn into the dress.

The 'red carpet' gowns are often loaned from the designers; the celebrity doesn't pay for them. Jewelery too.

[FEDUKE404]

Plan B

She claimed a deduction for an expensive gown used in her performances. The IRS disallowed the deduction. Ms. Shore then demonstrated to the Tax Court that the gown was so tight that she was unable to sit down while wearing it, and the IRS disallowal was overruled.

If Lady Gaga calls me for an appointment, I will refer her to you!

FE

[David1980]

A waiter forced to wear a tuxedo would qualify as formal wear not normally worn in every day life IMO. That would qualify as a uniform, no?

I think no.

[Burke]

The 'red carpet' gowns are often loaned from the designers; the celebrity doesn't pay for them. Jewelery too.

True, for the Oscars, Emmy's, etc. I was thinking of the paid performer/celebrity. Former Miss America's, etc., for example, have an entire business built around their winning of those pageants. They earn a very substantial income for personal appearances, at which they have to wear evening wear, so it takes a lot. I am not sure Vanna White pays for any of hers, however. Most TV celebrities are furnished these things for the advertising value of the designer's name appearing in the credits.

[Burke]

A waiter forced to wear a tuxedo would qualify as formal wear not normally worn in every day life IMO. That would qualify as a uniform, no?

Debatable. Does his lifestyle demonstrate he would never have use of one in his everyday life? Like New Year's Eve?
I would probably classify it as a uniform. IRS probably would object, but a case could be made. Is it worth going to court over? Probably not.

[WhiteOleander]

Debatable. Does his lifestyle demonstrate he would never have use of one in his everyday life? Like New Year's Eve?
I would probably classify it as a uniform. IRS probably would object, but a case could be made. Is it worth going to court over? Probably not.

Isn't this the same arguement that IBM employees made years ago regarding having to wear three piece suits. They claimed they would never need three piece suits in their own lifestyles, therefore, the suits should be deductible? They lost in court.