Anchorwoman

[solomon]

T.V. anchorwoman woman pays for own makeup, manicures, appropriate clothing and what not. Could one rely upon Reg. 1.162-6 - which addresses various expenses of a professional person - to deduct such items? Thanks.

[jainen]

>>various expenses of a professional person <<

Courts have ruled that such expenses of grooming are "inherently personal."

[Snaggletooth]

New Age Clothing

The courts need to reconsider (fat chance).

This lady dresses up like any other typical lady working in an office 30 years ago.

No more. I believe the occupations requiring impeccable style and posh dress are now very few and far between. I'm told even IBM has gone casual, in most offices I frequent the women now wear jeans and you are hard pressed to find anyone other than a salesman who wears a coat and tie.

The differences in the cost of the working wardrobe are in the four digits annually, not to mention extras such as dry cleaning and shoe polish. (Anyone want to buy stock in Kiwi?) On this type of expense, IRS gets back 2% of their AGI anyway. Give 'em a break.

[ChEAr$]

Next thing I hear

about such "good grooming and clothing" expenses, will be that
car salesmen can deduct their suits and dry cleaning.

[thomtax]

I will go you one better. I lost one client to another preparer here in town because this preparer will deduct the suits that a funeral home employee and burial insurance salesman buys.

LT

[jainen]

let it bother you

>>I lost one client to another preparer here in town because this preparer will deduct the suits that a funeral home employee and burial insurance salesman buys<<

Don't let it bother you. He sounds like a deadbeat anyway.

[erchess]

Here's my two cents

There was a time when makeup worn by people on the stage and people to be filmed for tv or movies was very different from the ordinary makeup people not in such activities may wear. If indeed she is wearing makeup that would make her look foolish on the street, I would deduct it.

Whether the makeup is deductible or not, if she pays for a professional makeup artist, I would deduct the full cost including payroll taxes and any accounting fees associated with that situation. (Actually the makeup artist is most likely not her employee any more than OP is.)

As for clothing, the safe harbor would be to deduct only clothing bearing the name or emblem of her union or employer. However, the tax court once held that a blouse with sequins required to be worn by a member of a symphony orchestra was not suitable for street wear. I also recall that the backup musicians for someone named Rod Stewart were allowed to deduct the costs of extremely flashy clothes on the ground that no one would ever go out on the street in them. I would therefore ask her to tell me about anything that seemed to her similarly too flashy for street wear and I would consider carefully what she had to say. I might ask her to bring me some of the clothes involved.

As for manicures, I don't think they would hold up even though everyone I know who regularly has them done tells me that they do it because it is expected in their business. Hairstyling and other cosmetology services are surely used by too many people for "the system" to let them be deductible.

And Snaggs, I can't tell whether you were saying that the rules should change or that tax pros should break the rules....tho the latter does not sound like you. Surely the amount of money the anchor is spending is not sufficient to motivate her to become a test case behind a legal argument to the effect that society has changed and now the rules need to change as well.

Let me ask a question on clothes - suppose that a minister in a tradition where pastors normally wear suits on Sunday Mornings found that he was doing a lot of weddings where the groom and his party were wearing tuxes so the minister decides to buy a tux including a special shirt and a vest or cummerbund and shoes. He never wears any of this to any function except weddings. Am I right in saying that he can't deduct this clothing any more than his regular Sunday Suit even though he may in fact never wear either outside of work activities? Would anything change if the leadership of the church told//asked him to dress in particular clothes, perhaps even specifying colors? I ask this question because in my personal religious tradition most clergy wear such things as clerical collars and liturgical robes and stoles that clearly no one would wear when not functioning as a pastor. On the other hand, nearly all of the clergy returns I have done have been for pastors in traditions where the norm for Sunday Morning is a dark suit.

[ED SMITH]

If Solomon's client worked at a financial institution, law office, upscale department store, etc., she would be wearing the same type of clothing as a TV anchor. The only difference might be in the makeup which uses a special color for the camera and would not be appropriate on the street.

Even though a lot of businesses dress has become more casual, a lot of businesses still maintain dress codes, so it is still not that unusual.

The problem women face is that they have to have a different matching outfit, including shoes, handbag, umbrella, scarf, for each day of the week.

[Davc]

I

The problem women face is that they have to have a different matching outfit, including shoes, handbag, umbrella, scarf, for each day of the week.

No, that's their husband's problem.

[OldJack]

Truth is that most such expenses mentioned here would not survive an IRS audit and the value of the tax deduction is not worth causing the audit. Even if you think it is a legal allowable deduction it may not be wise to take the deduction considering all aspects of the taxpayer's tax return.

[George Boutwell]

Conundrum of the Day

I'm still trying to figure out why dry cleaning is deductible when you're out of town, but not when you're at home.

[erchess]

Probably for the same reason that

meals away from home are deductible and meals in the area of your tax home are not unless you are somehow required to eat a given meal at a specified place and time.