Depreciating work uniform
Dwight Johnson
first year as a professional classical musician. His work
requires that he wear a tuxedo. I want to depreciate these
over five years.
His tuxedos seem to clearly qualify under the definition of
property that may be depreciated. But it does not seem to
fit into any depreciation class.
Can someone fill me in on the relevant tax law?
Thanks in advance,
--
Dwight
TexTax2
> I am doing my son's U.S. IRS income tax return. This is his
> first year as a professional classical musician. His work
> requires that he wear a tuxedo. I want to depreciate these
> over five years.
A tuxedo would not seem to qualify for a deduction as a work
uniform as it is suitable for wear in public. And even if it
were deductible it would have to go on Schedule and be
subject to the 2% floor, so it probably wouldn't help as a
deduction.
Hank Sievers
phrades
> I am doing my son's U.S. IRS income tax return. This is his
> first year as a professional classical musician. His work
> requires that he wear a tuxedo. I want to depreciate these
> over five years.
>
> His tuxedos seem to clearly qualify under the definition of
> property that may be depreciated. But it does not seem to
> fit into any depreciation class.
>
> Can someone fill me in on the relevant tax law?
If that tuxedo could be used outside his "business", I'd be
surprised if he could deduct it. I can't deduct my work
suits.
Steve W.
Michael Tyo
> I am doing my son's U.S. IRS income tax return. This is his
> first year as a professional classical musician. His work
> requires that he wear a tuxedo. I want to depreciate these
> over five years.
>
> His tuxedos seem to clearly qualify under the definition of
> property that may be depreciated. But it does not seem to
> fit into any depreciation class.
>
> Can someone fill me in on the relevant tax law?
Dwight:
Work clothes such as you described are miscellaneous
itemized deductions, subject to the 2% AGI floor.
If your son itemizes it'll help. Otherwise, no-go.
--Mike
HELJAN gal
> A tuxedo would not seem to qualify for a deduction as a
> work uniform as it is suitable for wear in public.
Hank, I have no problem deducting a tux and the cleaning
on Sch C. Not a lot of folks would wear a tux to work.
Helen, EA in PA
Member of NAEA, NATP and the Tax Gang
John Noble
> d...@aaronsrod.com (Dwight Johnson) writes:
>> I am doing my son's U.S. IRS income tax return. This is his
>> first year as a professional classical musician. His work
>> requires that he wear a tuxedo. I want to depreciate these
>> over five years.
> A tuxedo would not seem to qualify for a deduction as a work
> uniform as it is suitable for wear in public. And even if it
> were deductible it would have to go on Schedule and be
> subject to the 2% floor, so it probably wouldn't help as a
> deduction.
I hesitate to question Hank's usually right-on advice, but I seem to
recall that the IRS lost a case holding that a professional
entertainer's "wardrobe" is deductible. Maybe I have that
case exactly backwards, but it would seem to be an even
better case if the tuxedo was specifically required by an
employer as a condition of employment as long as, in fact,
it's used exclusively on the job. And just to complicate
matters, if the musician freelances, as many do, couldn't he
run it through a Schedule C? I suppose it raises a
philosophical question: do we play it safe or push the
envelope and wait for the IRS slap it down.
John Noble
Dick Adams
In order for a "business wardrobe" to be deductible, it
must NOT be appropriate for use in non-business settings
regardless of whether or not it is used in non-business
settings.
If the tux was embroidered with a business logo so that it
inappropriate for personal use, it might be deductible.
Then you have another problem!! If he has 1099 income, do
not depreciate it, 179 it if it was purchased in 1998. If
he has W-2 income, you have to take it at as a Schedule A
deduction against a 2% floor.
Dick
phrades
>>> I am doing my son's U.S. IRS income tax return. This is his
>>> first year as a professional classical musician. His work
>>> requires that he wear a tuxedo. I want to depreciate these
>>> over five years.
>> A tuxedo would not seem to qualify for a deduction as a work
>> uniform as it is suitable for wear in public. And even if it
>> were deductible it would have to go on Schedule and be
>> subject to the 2% floor, so it probably wouldn't help as a
>> deduction.
> I hesitate to question Hank's usually right-on advice, but I seem to
> recall that the IRS lost a case holding that a professional
> entertainer's "wardrobe" is deductible. Maybe I have that
> case exactly backwards, but it would seem to be an even
> better case if the tuxedo was specifically required by an
> employer as a condition of employment as long as, in fact,
> it's used exclusively on the job. And just to complicate
> matters, if the musician freelances, as many do, couldn't he
> run it through a Schedule C? I suppose it raises a
> philosophical question: do we play it safe or push the
> envelope and wait for the IRS slap it down.
The entertainer was Liberace -- his clothes were totally
outlandish. I don't believe that logic works here.
Steve W.
TexTax2
> Hank, I have no problem deducting a tux and the cleaning
> on Sch C. Not a lot of folks would wear a tux to work.
No, but a lot of people would wear a tux to public
functions, even here in Texas, and more than likely in
whatever city it is that has that formally dressed
orchestra. Even I have worn one a few times.
HS
Hank Sievers
TexTax2
>> I hesitate to question Hank's usually right-on advice,
>> but I seem to recall that the IRS lost a case holding
>> that a professional
Thanks for the compliment. I've made a boo-boo or three, but
I think that I am right on this one, even though Helen seems
to disagree. Maybe they don't wear tuxedos to social
functions in her part of the country, but they certainly do
here, even in the heart of casual Texas. And how about the
Captain's Dinner on cruise ships; doesn't everyone go on a
cruise these days? <gr>.
Hank Sievers
Ed Zollars
> His tuxedos seem to clearly qualify under the definition of
> property that may be depreciated.
As others have noted, there is a question here as to whether this
clothing will be deductible. One of the reasons for the question
is that there is some "give" in the law on this one.
The IRS position is that clothing must meet a two pronged test to
be deductible:
...if the uniforms are specifically required as a condition of
employment, and
...the uniforms aren't of a type adaptable to general or
continued usage to the extent they take the place of regular
clothing (from RIA's Federal Tax Coordinator citing Rev. Rul.
70-474, 1970-2 CB 34).
The second issue is what is in question here.
RIA discusses the fact that courts have sometimes gone
beyond that definition, though they note the Second and
Fifth Circuits have specifically adopted the strict IRS
test.
One interesting case to look at is the Betsy Lusk Yeomans
case ((1958) 30 TC 757, nonacq.) which dealt with the
purchase of high fashion clothes that otherwise would not be
used by the taxpayer due to her lifestyle. The Tax Court
*allowed* the deduction in that case. However, in the case
of Barry Pevsner ((1979) TC Memo 1979-311, PH TCM ś79311, 38
CCH TCM 1210, revd(1980, CA5) 46 AFTR 2d 80-5938, 628 F2d
467, 80-2 USTC ś9732, reh den(1981, CA5) 47 AFTR 2d 81-366,
636 F2d 1106, 81-1 USTC ś9206.), the Tax Court was reversed
by the Fifth Circuit on appeal when it tried to apply the
Yoemans logic to this particular case.
So what it comes down to is that the IRS would be unlikely
to allow the deduction for the tuxedos, but you might (or
might not) prevail in court on the issue.
---
Ed Zollars, CPA Phoenix, AZ
ezo...@primenet.com
http://www.getnet.com/~hmtzcpas
KAB629
>> first year as a professional classical musician. His work
>> requires that he wear a tuxedo. I want to depreciate these
>> over five years.
> A tuxedo would not seem to qualify for a deduction as a work
> uniform as it is suitable for wear in public. And even if it
> were deductible it would have to go on Schedule and be
> subject to the 2% floor, so it probably wouldn't help as a
> deduction.
Since this is his first year as a classical musician, he
might fall under the criteria for a qualified performing
artist. (More than 1 employer, AGI of $16,000 or less,
expenses greater than 10% of income received as a
performer). If so, the deduction for his tux (if deductible)
as well as his other business expenses, would be an
adjustment to income and not subject to the 2% floor.
Karen Bunce, EA
Per
> As others have noted, there is a question here as to whether this
> clothing will be deductible. One of the reasons for the question
> is that there is some "give" in the law on this one.
>
> The IRS position is that clothing must meet a two pronged test to
> be deductible:
>
> ...if the uniforms are specifically required as a condition of
> employment, and
> ...the uniforms aren't of a type adaptable to general or
> continued usage to the extent they take the place of regular
> clothing (from RIA's Federal Tax Coordinator citing Rev. Rul.
> 70-474, 1970-2 CB 34).
>
> One interesting case to look at is the Betsy Lusk Yeomans
> case ((1958) 30 TC 757, nonacq.) which dealt with the
> purchase of high fashion clothes that otherwise would not be
> used by the taxpayer due to her lifestyle. The Tax Court
> *allowed* the deduction in that case. However, in the case
> of Barry Pevsner ((1979) TC Memo 1979-311, PH TCM ś79311, 38
> CCH TCM 1210, revd(1980, CA5) 46 AFTR 2d 80-5938, 628 F2d
> 467, 80-2 USTC ś9732, reh den(1981, CA5) 47 AFTR 2d 81-366,
> 636 F2d 1106, 81-1 USTC ś9206.), the Tax Court was reversed
> by the Fifth Circuit on appeal when it tried to apply the
> Yoemans logic to this particular case.
>
> So what it comes down to is that the IRS would be unlikely
> to allow the deduction for the tuxedos, but you might (or
> might not) prevail in court on the issue.
An interesting question. Isn't the key point whether or not
the workwear item in question is an addition to normal
clothing, not simply a replacement for normal clothing? A
violin player in an orchestra has to wear a tuxedo just like
most of us have to wear a non-deductible suit at work. If,
however, a worker in some dangerous workplace has to pay for
his own special protective gloves, that would be a
deductible expense, since the worker wouldn't normally buy
extra gloves if he had a "normal" job.
I, for my part, recently bought a couple of hideously
expensive italian suits, which I would love to deduct on my
tax return...
Regards,
Per Andersson
jur kand, LL.M.
Stockholm, Sweden
Edward Zollars
> An interesting question. Isn't the key point whether or not
> the workwear item in question is an addition to normal
> clothing, not simply a replacement for normal clothing?
In two circuits, yes. In the Yoemans case, though, she was
wearing clothing that simply substituted for her normal
clothing and was perfectly usable for regular wear. There
the Tax Court still allowed her a deduction because the
clothing "wasn't like" what she normally wore. So,
arguably, the violin player may say he never wears a tuxedo
except when playing in the orchestra--and, under the Yoemans
logic, it would seem deductible.
Of course, two circuits totally disagree with that logic
<grin>.
---
Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ)
ezo...@primenet.com
http://www.getnet.com/~hmtzcpas
Redsoxbuff
> expensive italian suits, which I would love to deduct on my
> tax return...
And that's exactly why<g> the IRS isn't likely to allow
deductions of tuxes & other formal wear. In fact, even
deductions of military uniforms have been disallowed in the
past. (Those dress whites can be used in civilian
circumstances, you see.)
In general, unless the clothing is work-specific (steel-toed
boots, for example) a deduction isn't likely to survive a
review. And until the Association of High-Priced Italian
Designers gets a couple of new lines written into the tax
code(BG), that's not likely to change.
--Joseph Anthony, EA
Portland, OR