If Your Job Requires It, Can You Deduct It?

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!

What Happens When Hacking Concerns Conflict With A State Electronic Payment Mandate?

Let’s travel to the Bay State for a taxpayer requesting reasonable cause against the imposition of penalties.  

The amount in dispute is $100.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Our protagonist is Jonathan Haar, and he lives in Massachusetts. On April 15, 2011 he had the audacity to file a paper extension and include a $19,517 check for his tax year 2010 state return. The paper extension and payment

“… did not comply with the requirements set forth in Technical Information Release (“TIR”) 04-30 (“TIR 04-30”), which states that if a payment accompanying an extension application equals $5,000 or more, such extension application and payment must be submitted electronically.”

Got it. The state says that it is less expensive to process electronic than paper tax filings and payments. Seems reasonable. How do we get people to follow along, however? One way is to make whatever the state wants mandatory.

Our protagonist unfortunately had travelled this path before, and he had been warned for tax year 2005 and penalized for year 2006.  Massachusetts had a tax recidivist! They assessed the above-mentioned $100 penalty on our ne-er-do-well.

If you were my client, I would have told you to pay the $100 and move on. Mr. Haar is not my client, and he refused to pay. He instead filed an appeal, which appeal went to the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board.

His argument?

“Mr. Haar maintained that the Commissioner’s electronic payment mandate is a ‘serious invasion of both [his] privacy and [his] personal business practices,’ as it exposes his finances to risk of cyber attack.”

 “I intentionally do no electronic banking nor direct bill paying, I have none of my credit cards linked to my bank accounts directly and I think anyone who does any of the above is exposing themselves to multiple risks of cybercrime and identity theft.”

Mr. Haar further expressed doubts as to the security of the computer systems used by the Department of Revenue (“DOR”), noting that "if the Pentagon can be hacked," he had little confidence that DOR could protect his – or anyone’s – personal data from theft.

Massachusetts argued that it had the authority to mandate electronic filing and payment, as well as assess penalties if a taxpayer failed to comply with their filing and payment mandates. Massachusetts does recognize exceptions for reasonable cause, but its own Administrative Procedure 633 (“AP 633”) provides that

… the fact that a taxpayer does not own a computer or is uncomfortable with electronic data or funds transfer will not support a claim for reasonable cause.”

COMMENT: Call me quaint, but I would say that someone not having a computer is prima facie reasonable cause for not being able to file an electronic return or transfer funds electronically. The issue I see with AP 633 is its absolutism: the language “will not support” leaves no room. Why not say instead “generally will not support,” if only to allow space for unexpected fact patterns? 

In support of its position, the DOR trotted out two officials: the first was Robert Allard, a tax auditor. He pointed out that Mr. Haar filed an electronic return, presumably through a professional preparer. I suppose that Mr. Allard felt that if one could electronically file then one should be able to electronically pay. 

The second was Theresa O’Brien-Horan, a 26-year employee and Deputy Commissioner, who testified that

… the mandate at issue in this appeal – requiring individual taxpayers who apply for an extension with an accompanying payment of $5,000 or more to file and pay electronically – is helpful to DOR because it maximized up-front revenue intake.”

… the $5,000 threshold was chosen because it would ‘impact 17% of the taxpayers, but … get the money banked for 84% of the revenue.”

You can virtually feel the customer service vapor emanating from Ms O’Brien- Horan.

When asked whether reasonable cause was the Massachusetts equivalent of an ”opt out,” Ms. O’Brien-Horan answered “yes.”

OBSERVATION: The IRS, for example, prefers that one file an electronic return. The IRS however did not put the burden on the taxpayer; rather it put the burden on the preparer. If a preparer prepares more than a minimal number of returns annually, the preparer is required to file the returns electronically. This is awkward, as the return belongs to the taxpayer and not to the preparer. The preparer is not allowed to release any return – even to the IRS – without the taxpayer’s approval. What does the preparer do if the taxpayer does not grant approval? The preparer includes yet-another-form with the return indicating that the taxpayer has “opted out.” This prevents the IRS from penalizing the preparer for not filing electronically.

If Mr. Haar’s position was reasonable, then Mr. Haar could “opt out,” irrespective of any self-serving Massachusetts Administrative Procedure.

Ms. O’Brien-Horan just didn’t think that Mr. Haar was being reasonable.

But the Board did.

“Given his reference to the hacking of the Pentagon’s computer system, and in light of the many well-publicized instances of large-scale thefts of financial information following computer breaches at businesses and other institutions, and the appellant’s consistent practice of avoiding electronic payment of all his bills, including his tax obligations, the Board found that the appellant’s failure to utilize the Commissioner’s mandated electronic tax payment to be reasonable.”

Two things strike me immediately.

The first is the cause for concern comprising Mr. Haar’s argument. It had not occurred to me to off-grid all of one’s banking transactions, but he gives one pause. I recently read the following on www.marketwatch.com, for example:

A Russian gang has stolen 1.2 billion user names and their passwords as well as more than 500 million email addresses, the New York Times reports.

The information came from more than 400,000 websites, according to the Times, which says researchers at Milwaukee-based Hold Security discovered the cyber heist.

Mr. Haar is highly cautious. His position is somewhat eccentric but not unfounded. A reasonable tax collection agency would have granted him this one and moved on.  

The second is the inanity of Massachusetts DOR. Rather than abate a $100 penalty, it preferred to pursue the matter, at who knows what cost to state and citizens. We know that cost would include Mr. Allard and Ms O’Brien-Horan’s payroll, not to mention that of their superiors, legal counsel and who-knows-what else. I can understand not wanting to set a precedent, but … really? My take is that the DOR is too well-funded if they have the time and money to pursue nonsense like this. Perhaps DOR budgets cutbacks are in order for Massachusetts.

Limited Delay In ObamaCare Employer Mandate

Let’s touch again on the latest change to ObamaCare.

You may remember than last July, the IRS postponed the “Section 4980H shared-responsibility penalty” to 2015. Its original effective date was 2014.

CLARIFICATION: The 4980H shared responsibility penalty is the $2,000/$3,000 ObamaCare penalty levied on employers. The penalties apply if (1) you do not offer health insurance or (2) the government does not consider the health insurance you do provide to be adequate.

NOTE: This is a separate penalty from that levied on you personally should you not carry insurance. The way ObamaCare is constructed (at least presently), both the employer and employee can wind up paying penalties.     

OBSERVATION: And these penalties will wind up on someone’s individual or business tax return, which is why we are talking about them in a tax blog.

On February 10, 2014 the IRS further delayed the 4980H penalty for employers having 50 to 99 full-time equivalent employees in 2014. These employers now have an additional year – until 2016 – to offer health insurance to their employees.

I am going to have to put up a chart on my office wall to keep track of all the delays and changes.

Let’s recap the “new” revised rules for employer compliance with the 4980H penalty:

(1)  Employers with less than 50 full-time equivalent employees do not have to pay the penalty or file additional reports with the IRS - ever.

a.     There has been no change for this employer tier.

(2)  Employers with 50 to 99 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) will have to file reports with the IRS in 2015 but will not have to pay any penalties until 2016.

a.     That is a change.

b.    But … see below.

(3)  Employers with over 100 FTEs have to provide health insurance. They will also have to file reports and possibly pay penalties in 2015.

a.     But the hurdle for the penalties has changed.

b.    The new hurdle is 70% employee coverage for 2015 and 95% coverage in 2016 and later years.

                                                              i.     There is a small break here.

Then there is something odd.

Let’s go back to Tier 2 employers - those with 50 to 99 FTEs.

If this is you, you will have to sign an affidavit that you did not reduce the size of your workforce below 100 to take advantage of the additional one-year delay. The IRS does allow you to explain yourself, though, if you did:

For example, reductions of workforce size or overall hours of service because of business activity such as the sale of a division, changes in the economic marketplace in which the employer operates, terminations of employment for poor performance, or other similar changes unrelated to eligibility for the transition relief provided in this section XV.D.6 are for bona fide business reasons and will not affect eligibility for that transition relief.”

Tier 2 employers will be required to maintain a “comparable” level of health benefits as existed on February 9, 2014 in order to obtain relief.

OBSERVATION: Interestingly, if the Tier 2 employer did not offer health insurance on February 9, 2014, then this requirement is automatically met.

So … you will have to sign a form saying it was not the president’s fault that people lost their jobs.

I suppose it will be the tooth fairy’s fault.