Is make-up a business deduction

[Brad Imsdahl]

How about makeup for the local female news anchor? She gets the makeup before airtime, and she can wear it after she gets off work. Is the value of that makeup added to her income in box 1 of Form W2?

TTB, page 13-28, "the value of property or services provided to employees so that the employee can perform his or her job is excluded from taxable wages under Section 132(d)."

There goes that argument. I don't see the makeup issue as being gray. It is pretty clear, when you consider court cases on similar expenses.

For example, the hair cut issue was solved in Drake v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 842 (August 20, 1969) where an enlisted man in the U.S. Army was required to have his hair cut at least every 2 weeks. The court ruled the haircuts were personal expenses and not deductible. The court said expenses for personal grooming are inherently personal in nature. For example, the cost of dentures used to aid an actor’s enunciation was held not deductible. The cost of a hearing aid used by a lawyer both in his trade and for personal purposes was held not deductible.

The court also made this comment: “Many employers, expressly or otherwise, establish standards to Which their employees are expected to conform. Men are to be clean shaven and are often required to wear suits, ties, and clean shirts, and women are expected to be dressed attractively. To conform to these requirements, employees must make expenditures which would not be required if they were at home or not on the job. Nevertheless, Such expenditures for general personal grooming are inherently personal in nature and cannot be considered as business expenses.”

[TMI Moderator]

You write: "I'd explain the clothing rules to the client and say it will be disallowed by an agent if she's audited" Does that mean you're taking a position on a tax return which you KNOW to be wrong?

Stir things up? Me? Armando might do that, but not me.

When did a Revenue Agent's opinion become the final word in tax law? Although that's the exact attitude the IRS has been successful at fostering, just because a Revenue Agent would turn their nose up at a deduction doesn't make it wrong. I've seen countless situations where a Revenue Agent has taken a position that is contrary to what I know to be proper treatment under the tax code.

Too many tax professionals prepare returns based on being frightened of what a Revenue Agent might think. That's what I mean by "timid."

If the client is timid, that's fine. Let them make the decision when you tell them that a Revenue Agent would disallow the deduction. Let the client get scared and say "I don't want to take it then."

This doesn't prove the makeup deduction legitimate or not. But by golly gosh darnit, make recommendations based on your knowledge of tax law, not on what you're worried that an RA might say. If you believe it's a gray area, present it as such to your client. If you believe it's a slam dunk nondeductible, present it as such to your client. But don't go through your professional life worrying about doing everything you can to make sure you're going to please every RA you might run into.

If you've been accused of a crime, are you going to hire a lawyer who says "I don't want to say anything that the DA might disagree with?"

Too many people are lost to the fact that our relationship with IRS representatives is adversarial.

[New York Enrolled Agent]

Paul
Are you having an Armando identity crisis? TIMID tax pros??? More like, realistic tax pros. Maybe, its simply time to stir up the pot.

How can you possibly see any way Bonnie's taxpayer can overcome the inherent personal nature of this expense and the resulting prohibition of §262? This is NOT Gene Simmons - his stage makeup is a different story.

You write: "I'd explain the clothing rules to the client and say it will be disallowed by an agent if she's audited" Does that mean you're taking a position on a tax return which you KNOW to be wrong? You then note: "Is the value of that makeup added to her income in box 1 of Form W2" No, if nothing else, a deminimis fringe benefit under §132. Actually, some of the TV makeup is probably removed after the show. Much of it is too garish to wear outside the bright lights of the studio. Next, you'll want to deduct the tooth whitening for the TV anchor!!

[Snaggletooth]

Stage Makeup

Paul, makeup for Stage and TV lights would DEFINITELY fly.

The cosmetics for stage lighting are exceptionally heavy, such that in the glare they make the subject look "normal" to spectators.

However, if one of these people wore this makeup "on the street", they would look like a vampire. Like a jack-o-lantern with the candle blown out.

[TMI Moderator]

All you timid tax professionals!

The "adaptable for street wear" rule for CLOTHING has evolved from court cases and is based on IRC 262 that says personal expenses aren't deductible. One such court case was Ozzie and Harriet, the real ones. The court found that clothing owned by and stored at the studio was not adaptable for street wear, but clothing worn mostly by the kids outside the studio was adaptable and therefore wasn't deductible.

The rulings are based on what is deemed "acceptable" in the society and time period in question. For example, if you're in a play about Henry VIII, you could wear your costume on the street, but it would not fit today's style. Therefore it would be deductible clothing.

In short, all the discussions have been subjective discussions in court cases specifically about clothing. Why is everyone so quick to say "Nay!" and lump makeup in?

I'd explain the clothing rules to the client and say it will be disallowed by an agent if she's audited. But I'd give her that choice. I do believe it's a gray area. When my father was in the tax business, it was malpractice for a CPA to recommend against taking a deduction if it was a gray area. You explained and gave the choice to the client. Times have changed. We've allowed ourselves to become agents of enforcement.

How about makeup for the local female news anchor? She gets the makeup before airtime, and she can wear it after she gets off work. Is the value of that makeup added to her income in box 1 of Form W2? It is with clothes if she wears them outside of work.

As to the company supplying the makeup, it wouldn't make any difference. If it really is a personal expense, it would be added to income.

Makeup for the male news anchor would probably fall under the "society dictates of style," depending of course on what part of the country you're from.

[New York Enrolled Agent]

An attempt to paraphrase - "Client works as a massage therapist at Merle Norman and they require her to wear clothing to work. Otherwise she does not wear clothing at all( she is a nudist). Would the clothing she wears to work be considered an employee business expense?? "

Skyhatt and others are absolutely correct - personal expense. Don't even think of deducting it!!!

[skhyatt]

I don't believe this is even a gray area....personal expense.

[ChEAr$]

I've gotta agree with you

I thnk you need to explain the situation to the client and have them decide on a gray area. I tend to think this is a personal expense. However, maybe she could get Merle Norman to provide her with the cosmetics for her use.

this is a personal expense, no matter what she might look like "before and after".

And any analogies to "uniforms" just don't fit.

On the other hand, those short shorts Hooters' girls wear (or so I'm told).....
just might qualify.

[KJ Judd]

I thnk you need to explain the situation to the client and have them decide on a gray area. I tend to think this is a personal expense. However, maybe she could get Merle Norman to provide her with the cosmetics for her use.

[Brian EA]

No answer, but I have to tell you a story about drawn on eyebrows.

We were in FL at the beginning of December and we went to dinner at a pretty nice restaurant. Our waitress had plucked, shaved or waxed her eyebrows then drew in new ones about 3/4" ABOVE where they were supposed to be. That was one freaky looking chick. She was an excellent waitress, but I did not have enough Captain in me to ask what the deal was with her eyebrows.

Are you sure it was in FL Matt?

[Matt Sova]

Too funny

Maybe this person can put on the makeup and draw the company name and logo on her forehead with the eye liner, the way some women who have none have to draw on eyebrows.

No answer, but I have to tell you a story about drawn on eyebrows.

We were in FL at the beginning of December and we went to dinner at a pretty nice restaurant. Our waitress had plucked, shaved or waxed her eyebrows then drew in new ones about 3/4" ABOVE where they were supposed to be. That was one freaky looking chick. She was an excellent waitress, but I did not have enough Captain in me to ask what the deal was with her eyebrows.

[BP.]

>>same distinctive lipstick<< Merle's Masseuse Mauve?

[jainen]

A good place

>>put on the makeup and draw the company name and logo on her forehead<<

A good place to put the logo would be on her nose ring or an eyebrow stud. Then if everyone in the place uses the same distinctive lipstick you could make the case for a uniform.

[Brad Imsdahl]

I read a case once where the shirt was deductible as a uniform because the company name and logo was on the shirt, but the matching pants were not deductible because there was no such name or logo on the pants.

Maybe this person can put on the makeup and draw the company name and logo on her forehead with the eye liner, the way some women who have none have to draw on eyebrows.

[jainen]

Warning:

>>no different than a person who must wear a uniform<<

Warning: cheap shot ahead.

With a name like Uncle Sam, you should know the difference between a woman in uniform and a woman wearing makeup!