Police officers - schedule a deductions

[mrbill]

Have picked up a number of new po clients, and I notice that some have deductions for "haircuts" and now "shoe polish". That looks like a s t r e t c h to me. Agree ?

[taxea]

there was a time when we could take haircuts but not anymore. Absolute no to shoe polish or anything else that can be used as a personal item, whether or not it is. This is like the airline stews that keep trying to take nylons.

[ChEAr$]

I'll take issue with taxea on the subject of haircuts. There never WAS a time when haircuts were a permitted deduction, neither on federal or state returns.
Well, state with which i'm familiar, but then, I never was in California. LOL

[taxea]

I'll take issue with taxea on the subject of haircuts. There never WAS a time when haircuts were a permitted deduction, neither on federal or state returns.
Well, state with which i'm familiar, but then, I never was in California. LOL

Maybe in your area of the country but it was done in mine.

[FEDUKE404]

Correct !

I'll take issue with taxea on the subject of haircuts. There never WAS a time when haircuts were a permitted deduction, neither on federal or state returns.
Well, state with which i'm familiar, but then, I never was in California. LOL

I'm with you on that....to include NC.

What's next? Shoe shines, underwear, toothpaste, manicures, deodorant, hair dye, Brazilian wax jobs, Twinkies ??

Sounds like some of the discussions I had in the olden days with Amway and/or Mary Kay folks. . . . .

FE

[New York Enrolled Agent]

Maybe in your area of the country but it was done in mine.

Quite frankly, it sounds like Urban legend. Can you point to any cite that would substantiate your assertion?

[Gary2]

Shifting gears slightly:

The uniform is a valid deduction, as it's neither appropriate for ordinary wear, nor, in some jurisdictions, permitted to be worn off duty. Hence the cleaning bill for the uniform is also a valid deduction. Agreed?

So where does this leave shoe shining or shoe polish? I assume that the shoes, though required, aren't uniform-specific, and hence neither the shoes nor the maintenance would be allowed. On the other hand, a motorcycle office might be able to claim his boots, depending on their design, as they're not generally worn in other contexts (motorcycle clubs notwithstanding). What about cycling shorts for police on bikes? Such shorts may have been worn in other contexts as a fad in the 90s, but aren't anymore, though they still might be worn for recreational cycling. (Don't confuse them with compression shorts worn at the gym, as cycling shorts have special padding; I don't actually know whether police wear the same sort of padded cycling shorts that cyclists wear.)

This is just idle wondering. I've never had the question come up in actual practice.

[taxmandan]

Shifting gears slightly:

The uniform is a valid deduction, as it's neither appropriate for ordinary wear, nor, in some jurisdictions, permitted to be worn off duty. Hence the cleaning bill for the uniform is also a valid deduction. Agreed?

I've deducted the cleaning bill for uniforms because laundering them at home has the potential for biohazards on the clothing being passed to the family. Police and Fire fighters pick up all kinds of nasty germs, bacteria and other biohazaards during their work and those things are not welcome in the home. Most agencies have locker/changing rooms at the workplace for that reason.

[taxea]

I'm with you on that....to include NC.

What's next? Shoe shines, underwear, toothpaste, manicures, deodorant, hair dye, Brazilian wax jobs, Twinkies ??

Sounds like some of the discussions I had in the olden days with Amway and/or Mary Kay folks. . . . .

FE

I am not going to squabble...All I'm saying is when I learned to take expense for military, police and fire I was told that haircuts were deductible because they were "agency mandatory". I would not take them for undercover "Serpico" cops because it was obvious that they weren't cutting their hair and were authorized by the dept to matain a "scrungie" image as part of their job position.

[quicksam]

I'm with you on that....to include NC.

What's next? Shoe shines, underwear, toothpaste, manicures, deodorant, hair dye, Brazilian wax jobs, Twinkies ??

Sounds like some of the discussions I had in the olden days with Amway and/or Mary Kay folks. . . . .

FE

I hope you are not saying that we cannot deduct Twinkies? Sheeesh, I thought I was losing one of my most used deductions. LOL!

[Snaggletooth]

Donuts and Coffee

At one time we had someone posting with us from a nearby town - dmj4 - and I haven't heard from her in a LOONNNGGG time. A shame really.

Apparently in her town she interfaced with one of her town's officers, and found out he was deducting meals, mileage, and all manner of things obviously a stretch to deduct. One guy in town seemed to be preparing taxes for almost all the police force. Small town, maybe 25 cops counting detectives, captains, etc.

IRS audited this guy. When he got dinged, he blurted out "I KNOW I can deduct my meals! ALL of us do!!"

Big mistake.

[mastertaxguy]

Police officer haircuts and shoe polish deduction

The following is from an IRS Criminal Investigation post from August, 2012.

Dishonest tax preparers succeed because they enthusiastically convince individuals they know how to obtain “secret” law enforcement officer deductions. There is no such thing! No secret deductions exist for law enforcement officers and you may not deduct hair cuts, personal car insurance, uniforms provided by the government, commuting costs, dry cleaning or any other ‘special’ expenses unless specifically allowed by law. Ask your return preparer to prove a deduction exists before you sign your return

Post dated August 2, 2012.
-----

Those who may have attended an AES seminar in the past may recall a NW CPA who was the subject of IRS summons for information on his law enforcement clients, including secret service personel, for whom the CPA has claimed questionable itemized deductions. In Michigan, a preparer north of Detroit did tax returns for quite a number of Oakland County Sherriff deputies. He was convicted of aiding and abetting false tax returns. A few of the deputies contacted me after receiving a notice from the Deputy Sherriff regarding questionable tax return practices; a few more after IRS notices arrived. About a year after his conviction, the preparer was allowed by a Federal court to resuming preparing tax returns--so he could pay his fines.

[mastertaxguy]

Stretch?

Have picked up a number of new po clients, and I notice that some have deductions for "haircuts" and now "shoe polish". That looks like a s t r e t c h to me. Agree ?

It is a stretch only if you do not follow case law. See Cottrell, TC Sum 2008-101 and a 1970 TC Case Hynes v Commissioner, and Rev Rul 78-128.