Is make-up a business deduction

[Davc]

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.

True, I've seen some of them at the local Subway.

[TMI Moderator]

The concession I'll have to make before someone else brings it up is the protection from taking a frivolous position. I believe that's defined by the IRS as "one in three" tax professionals would agree with the position.

You guys are like the braniacs in math class. You're always messing up the curve!

[jainen]

in the court case

>>if it's true that this expense is 100% for business, and there is zero personal use<<

She's a massage therapist and her company just has a dress code. It's not a costume like clown makeup. It's not even a demo product for a salesperson. It's as "inherently personal" as the haircuts in the court case.

[TMI Moderator]

But what if I leave it in my office when I go home at night, as to not risk damaging it at home, like the Ozzie and Harriet case? Wouldn't that make it OK???

If you worked for a watchmaker who required you to use a specific watch to perform your job and you never took it out of the shop, I'd say that's a gray area.

Remember, this question is about a cosmetics company requiring its employees to wear certain cosmetics as part of their job, and this employee does not wear the makeup at any time other than at work.

Broadcasters often provide clothes for news anchors that the anchors never take home. You're going to add the value to the anchor's W2 wages?

If you say that cosmetics is not treated the same as clothes, your entire argument falls apart. The only reason there's a specific rule for clothes is because of court cases, not because of the code. If you take the court cases away because they don't apply to cosmetics, you're back to the general "reasonable and necessary" rules, and if the item is used 100% for business, there's no question of personal use.

Having said that, in reality there's a good chance this person who says they "never" wear makeup away from their job is the same type of person who says they "never" use their cell phone to make or receive personal calls. However, if it's true that this expense is 100% for business, and there is zero personal use, it's not unreasonable to at least call it a "gray area."

We have an item that is 100% business use. There is no authority that disallows the deduction. What's wrong with presenting the option to the client to deduct it and to see if the IRS disallows it?

[Brad Imsdahl]

Pub 17, p. 193, "You cannot deduct the cost of a wristwatch . . . "

But what if I leave it in my office when I go home at night, as to not risk damaging it at home, like the Ozzie and Harriet case? Wouldn't that make it OK???

[BP.]

Now, you know this was coming, Brad, right? Pub 17, p. 193, "You cannot deduct the cost of a wristwatch . . . " Two-thirty seems to be the universal caffeine-o'clock. Diet Pepsi time!

[Brad Imsdahl]

Coffee break time

Now that you mention it, I think I should be able to deduct my watch. If I don’t get my caffeine fix at exactly 2:30 PM every day, I get very cranky and can’t get any work done.

[oceanlovin'ea]

Glasses

On the glasses issue, I have a client who just bought computer glasses. He is a draftsman and needed the glasses for work. Would that be deductible?

In fact, I need to get a new pair of glasses to use when I am on the computer. My trifocals aren't working very well. I need some that I can read my papers and see the screen. Can I deduct them?

Linda F

[jainen]

>>the cost of my glasses as a business expense<<

Glasses are a listed item since they are suitable for recreation like watching TV. You must maintain a usage log. Every time you look out the window and start daydreaming, you have to write it down.

[Joe Btfsplk]

If make-up is deductible....

If her job requires her to use make-up and it is deductible, then, since my job requires me to see what I am doing, I should be able to deduct the cost of my glasses as a business expense rather than as a medical expense (which is never over 7½ % of my income)..

[Brad Imsdahl]

Leaving the clothes at the studio and not wearing cosmetics at home are two completely different situations. As I understand it, Ozzie and Harriett were not nudists. They wore other clothing during the times they were not on the set.

For you to make a comparison of cases, you would have to argue that the cosmetics worn on the job cannot be worn at home for some job related reason. There was a job related reason that clothes worn on a TV show should remain at the studio. There is no job related reason for this taxpayer to choose not to wear make-up while away from her job. It is a personal decision, not job related to go make-up-less.

And as I said before, the Ozzie and Harriett case seemed to be centered more on the issue of substantiation of expenses, rather than the clothes being personal in nature.

[TMI Moderator]

The Nelson case was not a debate over whether the clothing was suitable for every day use or not. The IRS disallowed the cost of clothing for not having proof of the expenses incurred. They had poor records.

Not a very good case to make your case with.

You're taking a quick glance at the wrong part of the court decision. You are referring to the kids' clothes that the court disallowed, in part because of poor records, and in part because the kids did not leave the clothes at the studio all the time. Ozzie and Harriett got the deduction for their clothes, poor records and all.

Speaking of poor records...

...oh, I'll resist making a comment about Ricky's music career.

[Brad Imsdahl]

The Nelson case was not a debate over whether the clothing was suitable for every day use or not. The IRS disallowed the cost of clothing for not having proof of the expenses incurred. They had poor records.

Not a very good case to make your case with.

[TMI Moderator]

Client works as a massage therapist at Merle Norman and they require her to wear their makeup to work. Otherwise she does not wear makeup at all. Would the makeup she wears to work be considered an employee business expense?? Just wondering what everyone else thinks??

Thanks
Bonnie

Not so fast.

The orginal post said "Otherwise she does not wear makeup at all."

In Nelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1966-224 (Ozzie and Harriet), the Nelsons purchased clothing that would have been perfectly suitable for street wear, but there was another factor present that the court said made the deduction allowable. The Nelsons would change their clothes at the end of each workday and give the clothes to their wardrobe manager because they had to be cleaned and pressed and ready for retakes, etc. They never had access to the clothing during personal time. From the decision:

"Such personal use of such clothing as the record discloses is so little as to be de minimis on the part of petitioner Oswald Nelson. No indication of personal use thereof by Harriet Nelson may be concluded from the evidence before us."

Clearly from the decision, if the clothes are kept at work all the time, the clothes are not available for street wear and are not considered personal-use items. It makes sense. It's my understanding, for example, that major network anchors have their on-air clothes provided to them, and they wear the clothes only at work. Does the value of the clothing end up on their W2?

If the client in this situation truly "otherwise does not wear makeup at all," and the only place she wears makeup is at work, and it's a condition of employment, I contend that it rises at least to the level of gray area, especially if one is going to say that makeup falls into the same category as clothing.

[Brad Imsdahl]

Here is an interesting case, Richards v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1999-163, May 14, 1999.


Excerpts from this case: “The issues for decision are… (3) whether petitioner Ruth Baime Richards (Mrs. Richards) conducted her actress model activity with the objective of making a profit within the meaning of section 183; if so, (4) whether petitioners have substantiated the ordinary and necessary business expenses of this activity;…”

“4. ACTRESS-MODEL EXPENSES… Petitioners claimed a deduction of $960 for miscellaneous expenses for hair and wig preparation, cosmetics, clothing, alterations, cleaning, supplies, fur coat storage, gifts, supplies, and meals. Petitioners did not offer any documentation or testimony on the breakdown of how much was spent on each item. Furthermore, some of these expenses are not deductible business expenses. <<ENDNOTE 6>>”

“6/ It is well settled that clothing that is suitable for general or personal wear does not qualify as a business expense under sec. 162. See, e.g., Green v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-599. Such costs are not deductible even when it has been shown that the particular clothes would not have been purchased but for the employment. See Stiner v. United States, 524 F.2d 640 (10th Cir. 1975); Donnelly v. Commissioner, 262 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1959), affg. 28 T.C. 1278 (1957). Furthermore, expenses related to hair salon visits and cosmetics are inherently personal expenses under sec. 262.”

Issue solved. Make-up required to be worn by women on the job is not a business deduction.