Replacement window salesman-new gun

[ChEAr$]

Form 8275

You mean the "Please Audit Me I Have A Less Than 50% Chance Of Prevailing On This Dumb Tax Position That I Just Took" form?

Is the one I'm talking about. And no, it does not automatically invite and audit.

[Bees Knees]

Can't do what? "adequately disclose" with the disclosure form?

Mere usage of that form does not mandate an audit.

You mean the "Please Audit Me I Have A Less Than 50% Chance Of Prevailing On This Dumb Tax Position That I Just Took" form?

[ChEAr$]

Huh?

It would be audited for sure.

Can't do what? "adequately disclose" with the disclosure form?

Mere usage of that form does not mandate an audit.

[Black Bart]

Can't do that.

...It...would require disclosure.

It would be audited for sure.

[Larmil]

[QUOTE=Zee;51007]With a BBS handle, "Black Bart" (it sounds like a gunslinger) I kinda expected you might support deducting the handgun as an employee business expense (LOL). As you know, it's most likely a mute point anyway. It seems most don't benefit from 2% deductions.

/QUOTE]

Black Bart probably has a brother named Bret.

[Zee]

How about a robber?

I think I'd deduct it just to be able to say that I've done it (doesn't hurt to live a little -- a sense of adventure and all that). Anyway, if I can justify expensing safety glasses, then why not some real "safety" equipment?

Long ago I clerked for a wealthy plantation owner who had us to debit "security" expense for his new custom-made Browning shotgun ($1,000 then/probably $3-4K now). It was fairly blatant/obvious -- he was an avid duck-hunter -- but nothing ever came of it.

Oddly enough, armed robbers broke into his home about a year later, tied him up, and looted the place (pricey wifey diamonds). He never had time to grab the gun, but maybe could have argued self-defense (for whatever it's worth) with an IRS auditor.

With a BBS handle, "Black Bart" (it sounds like a gunslinger) I kinda expected you might support deducting the handgun as an employee business expense (LOL). As you know, it's most likely a mute point anyway. It seems most don't benefit from 2% deductions.

Just to throw a little more fun into the mix, I believe I've read of other court cases in non-US countries where a robber was allowed to deduct a handgun as a "tool of the trade". Makes sense, huh?

[Black Bart]

Interesting case.

Taxpayer has a new job in 2007 selling replacement windows for homes. He travels to customers homes to show sample windows and has traveled to some out of the way very remote places where he did not feel safe. He bought a small gun to carry in his pocket for protection if the need should ever arrive. He also had to take a class for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He has other guns so bought this one only because of the job as none he had was small enough to fit in his pocket. Would these expenses be deductible as business expenses. Obviously he feels they are necessary to do his job. Would they be ordinary? I don't do any other door to door salespeople so don't know if people in that line of work would feel this is an ordinary expense. What does everyone think?

Thank you
Bonnie

I think I'd deduct it just to be able to say that I've done it (doesn't hurt to live a little -- a sense of adventure and all that). Anyway, if I can justify expensing safety glasses, then why not some real "safety" equipment?

Long ago I clerked for a wealthy plantation owner who had us to debit "security" expense for his new custom-made Browning shotgun ($1,000 then/probably $3-4K now). It was fairly blatant/obvious -- he was an avid duck-hunter -- but nothing ever came of it.

Oddly enough, armed robbers broke into his home about a year later, tied him up, and looted the place (pricey wifey diamonds). He never had time to grab the gun, but maybe could have argued self-defense (for whatever it's worth) with an IRS auditor.

[ChEAr$]

Therefore

[]with deducting the gun under section 179, IF the salesman gathers deposits on future jobs
and has to carry cash back to the office.

But if not, and just for personal safety, then no deduction

Actually he does collect money and sometimes has large sums that he does take with him when he leaves the customer's house.

Bonnie

it's a cinch. Go for it.

[Bonnie]

[]with deducting the gun under section 179, IF the salesman gathers deposits on future jobs
and has to carry cash back to the office.

But if not, and just for personal safety, then no deduction

Actually he does collect money and sometimes has large sums that he does take with him when he leaves the customer's house.

Bonnie

[ChEAr$]

No problem here

with deducting the gun under section 179, IF the salesman gathers deposits on future jobs
and has to carry cash back to the office.

But if not, and just for personal safety, then no deduction.

[outwest]

An attempt at humor..

I wonder if 8875 disclosure that the taxpayer packs a gun would affect the chances of a audit? the type of auditor sent?

[dsi]

Bonnie, have your client ask for reimbursement from his employer. Also, have him ask his employer for a letter requiring him to own and carry his gun.

[erchess]

Apology to Zee

I'm sorry that I managed to offend you. I did not intend to come across as "nasty".

BTW I believe we would both talk the taxpayer out of the gun deduction or let him go elsewhere. For me only the new regulations that took effect on 1/1/08 put me there. For a return I signed before that date I would have put the gun on the return in this and many other sets of facts if I felt that my client would still be my client after losing the gun on audit.

[Zee]

I personally think it could be considered an ordinary and necessary expense only for people whose jobs take them into unusually dangerous situations.

First, would a gun in the OP set of facts have required disclosure before 1/1/08?

Second, what's this about "if allowed"? I thought almost any expense was allowed if the facts and circumstances indicated that it was "ordinary and necessary"? It's almost as if you believe that there is a rule limiting deductibility of firearms to peace officers. For all I know, there could be such a rule, but I'd like to see a cite. There are absolutely ridiculous rules regarding the deductibility of work clothing and despite my opinion of them I help my clients follow them for my sake and the clients' sake.

What if this salesman had to deliver pizzas in a neighborhood where there is frequent gunfire on the street or frequent robberies of pizza delivery personnel?

What's with the nasty reply? Lighten up

Of course, a gun is clearly an ordinary and necessary business expense item for a policeman. It's also a job requirement.

The "if allowed" was simply inserted to indicate that if a gun was an allowable deduction in the circumstances described, it would be allowable in almost any situation. For example, some teachers have asked to carry guns because schools have become a potentially dangerous environment.

I think a pizza delivery man might be a stretch, but there's no question it can be a risky job. They are robbed frequently.

What about the mailman in the same area, or bread delivery truck driver, etc? The list could be endless.

In my opinion, a window replacement salesman deducting a gun as a business expense, wouldn't survive audit or the tax court and if deducted, would require disclosure under the new rules.

[erchess]

Questions

If allowed, a gun could be considered an ordinary and necessary business expense of just about any occupation these days, including tax preparers. It almost certainly wouldn't survive audit or the courts, and would require disclosure.

I personally think it could be considered an ordinary and necessary expense only for people whose jobs take them into unusually dangerous situations.

First, would a gun in the OP set of facts have required disclosure before 1/1/08?

Second, what's this about "if allowed"? I thought almost any expense was allowed if the facts and circumstances indicated that it was "ordinary and necessary"? It's almost as if you believe that there is a rule limiting deductibility of firearms to peace officers. For all I know, there could be such a rule, but I'd like to see a cite. There are absolutely ridiculous rules regarding the deductibility of work clothing and despite my opinion of them I help my clients follow them for my sake and the clients' sake.

What if this salesman had to deliver pizzas in a neighborhood where there is frequent gunfire on the street or frequent robberies of pizza delivery personnel?