I was
recently talking with a friend about job opportunities available to him.
Some
locations – like New York and L.A. – he dismissed immediately.
Then he
mentioned that another location would require him to “suit and tie” every day.
I could not
help but laugh. We both worked together in a mandatory “tie” environment, and I
have worked in a mandatory “coat and tie” one. I suspect the latter is because the
firm was downtown, and the firm wanted to project a certain image as its
employees walked about.
Still,
suiting up gets expensive.
Sure would
be nice if you could get a tax deduction out of it.
It’s almost
impossible.
There is a famous case that laid down three requirements for clothing to be deductible:
(1) The clothing is of a type specifically
required as a condition of employment;
(2) It is not adaptable to ordinary
day-to-day wear; and
(3) It is not used for day-to-day wear.
All in all,
that seems to cover almost all clothing, unless you wear uniforms or are an
astronaut.
But let me
give you a few odd situations, and you tell me if there is hope of a tax
deduction:
(1) You are a painter and are requested by
the union to wear the traditional white-on-white painter’s outfit.
(2) You are a television news anchor and
have to dress the part.
(3) You are a Swedish rock band and wear clothing
that looks like it has been dragged and ripped by wild dingoes.
(4) You are a musician and dress like a
gypsy (or Welsh witch) for your performances.
There is a
fellow who works for Ralph Lauren Corp. The company requires him to wear Ralph
Lauren apparel while representing the company. As a consequence he has quite
the extensive collection (and investment), and he tried to deduct some of it as
a miscellaneous deduction on his Schedule A.
The Tax
Court just said no dice. The clothing could be used day-to-day and therefore
did not rise to the level of a deduction. The cost and restrictions imposed
upon him by his employer were not tax relevant.
In truth, I
wonder why he even pursued this matter. There is a case from before I came out
of school where an Yves Saint Laurent employee tried the same deduction and
failed.
Back to our
examples:
(1) No deduction. The clothing could
still be worn, although one is unlikely to do so. There may be an argument if
the union required you to dress that
way. The tax trigger would be more the requirement and less the clothing.
(2) Almost impossible. There is a case
involving a news anchor with a wardrobe she considered too conservative for
everyday use. She segregated it and wore it only at work. Not only did the Tax
Court disallow the deduction, they also assessed penalties.
(3) This was the band ABBA, and they got
the deduction. If you google their photographs, it is clear you would not wear
that clothing outside of a performance or on Halloween.
(4) This was Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood
Mac. She deducted over $40 grand on her 1991 tax return for costumes and hair styling.
The IRS disallowed these and selected other deductions on her return. While the
matter was docketed for Tax Court, it was returned to IRS Appeals. It was there
resolved, and unfortunately tax practitioners (other than Stevie’s tax advisor)
do not know how it turned out.
Then for the
extreme tax athletes there is the woman who was able to deduct her body makeup,
and I freely admit I am not sure what that is. She did not deduct clothing, as
she wore none. She was an actress for the Broadway performances of Oh!
Calcutta!
