Uniforms

[oceanlovin'ea]

Client is beautician. She was pregnant in 2006 and had to buy new uniforms to wear to work. These were things she only wore to work, not double duty clothes.

She spent about $500 on tops and pants. I was hesitant to let her claim the cost of all these clothes.

After she had the baby in 2007, she donated them to Goodwill or some other charity.

Would you deduct the whole cost? Guess my brain is not working well today. I have spent too much time fighting with Brighthouse because my phone and internet go out seveal times a day for the last week. I told them today they have had their last chance. I am changing to Verizon for internet and going back to Verizon phone.

Linda F

[WhiteOleander]

These were things she only wore to work, not double duty clothes.

Linda F

If these clothes were not actually uniform clothes, she cannot claim a uniform deduction for them. They had to have the business name, or some logo or something that differentiated them from regular street clothes.

If she does qualify to write them off as business, she has no basis for a charitable deduction.

[oceanlovin'ea]

Scrubs

They are like scrubs that many beauticians and people that work in doctors offices wear.

Linda

[Bees Knees]

Having the name on the uniform is not a requirement. It may help make it deductible, but it is not a requirement.

IRS Pub 529 says:

Work Clothes and Uniforms

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

1. You must wear them as a condition of your employ-
ment.
2. The clothes are not suitable for everyday wear.

It is not enough that you wear distinctive clothing.
The clothing must be specifically required by your
employer. Nor is it enough that you do not, in fact,
wear your work clothes away from work. The clothing must
not be suitable for taking the place of your regular clothing.

Examples of workers who may be able to deduct the
cost and upkeep of work clothes are: delivery workers,
firefighters, health care workers, law enforcement officers, letter
carriers, professional athletes, and transportation
workers (air, rail, bus, etc.).

Musicians and entertainers can deduct the cost of theat-
rical clothing and accessories that are not suitable for
everyday wear.

However, work clothing consisting of white cap, white
shirt or white jacket, white bib overalls, and standard work
shoes, which a painter is required by his union to wear on
the job, is not distinctive in character or in the nature of a
uniform. Similarly, the costs of buying and maintaining blue
work clothes worn by a welder at the request of a foreman
are not deductible.

Any specifics mentioned in the IRS Pub above are due to court cases and Revenue Rulings that have been issued on specific situations. If it is borderline, I would deduct. If you do not, IRS is not going to come back later and say you should have deducted it.

[DonPriebe]

It's all politics

... However, work clothing consisting of white cap, white shirt or white jacket, white bib overalls, and standard work shoes, which a painter is required by his union to wear on the job, is not distinctive in character or in the nature of a uniform.

Ever wonder what the painters' union did wrong to get such bad treatment from the IRS? Or what the Alaskan whaling boat captains did right?

"Certain whaling captains may be able to deduct expenses paid in 2006 for Native Alaskan subsistence bowhead whale hunting activities."

[Black Bart]

I've wondered the same thing, Don.

Ever wonder what the painters' union did wrong to get such bad treatment from the IRS? Or what the Alaskan whaling boat captains did right?

I saw something about that deduction for "certain whaling captains" in a monthly tax pub a while back and was astounded. Considering how many jillion house painters there must be compared to maybe a handful of whaling captains, the only thing I could think of is that maybe Senator "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens of Alaska " must have lobbied for them.

[DonPriebe]

Must be a very strong lobby

I saw something about that deduction for "certain whaling captains" in a monthly tax pub a while back and was astounded. Considering how many jillion house painters there must be compared to maybe a handful of whaling captains, the only thing I could think of is that maybe Senator "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens of Alaska " must have lobbied for them.

It's not buried in the fine print either. It's in the FIRST paragraph of "Gifts to Charity" in the Instructions for Schedule A. Comes way before "Churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc."