By: A.J. Cook

Hanging in every taxpayer’s closet may be hundreds of dollars in tax deductions.

However, certain tough tests must be met before an employee can take the cost and maintenance of clothing as an itemized deduction. First, the clothes must be required in the taxpayer’s job. Second, they must not be suitable for general wear and not generally worn by the taxpayer.

Here are three court case examples on the question of whether the clothes were suitable for general wear:

The California Department of Motor Vehicles required male drivers license examiners to wear a slate gray suit. The coat was to have two inside pockets and two outside lower pockets without flaps. The trousers were to have cuffs, two hip pockets without flaps but with a button for the left hip pocket. Examiner Harry J. Sanner of San Francisco was not crazy about his suits. He wore them because he was required to wear them and wore them only to work and while commuting. The Internal Revenue Service disallowed his deduction, saying the suits were suitable for general wear. Sanner made one big mistake: He wore the suit to court when he challenged the IRS. The judge agreed with the agency, after noticing Sanner’s dapper appearance.

Professional violinist Katia V. Popov played with the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra and the Long Beach Symphony. She was required to wear black--skirts, dresses or pants--with plain or sequined blouses. She hated black but accepted that it was part of her performance uniform. She won a partial victory in court when the judge allowed a deduction for her formal attire, but no others.

In the case of Oron R. Morgan of Oak Cliff, Tex., the court allowed the deduction for the North American Aviation Company foreman. He had to wear a long white lab coat with this written on the pocket, “Foreman.” The court doubtless agreed with his wife that the coat was not suitable for general wear.

Some other clothes ruled deductible by the courts include the following: nurses uniforms, actresses’ costumes, smocks by an art teacher and protective clothing, like steel toe boots. But a mink coat worn by an executive’s wife where clients were apt to be was not deductible.

The Moral: Clothes make the man and sometimes a deduction.

If the clothes you have to buy aren’t suitable for general wear, and you don’t generally wear them, you can list them and cleaning costs as an itemized deduction.

Clothes not suitable for general wear include: formal attire, nurse’s uniforms, theatrical costumes and clothes with labels such as your company name. As to other clothes, the law fails to answer one major question: Is suitability determined by what you generally wear or what anyone generally wears?

The answer comes from two cases, the first from Nashville. Betsy L. Yeomans was General Shoe Corporation’s fashion coordinator. As part of her job, she staged style shows, commenting on the shoes by the models. Even though normally a conservative dresser and thrifty shopper, she was expected to wear shoes of the type being promoted and clothes that complemented them. The company furnished the shoes but not the dresses.

The court allowed the deduction saying the clothes were too high fashion and extreme for Yeomans’ conservative tastes. So if the taxpayer wouldn’t ordinarily wear the clothes, they were considered unsuitable for general wear and therefore deductible.

The IRS wanted a tougher standard and vowed to challenge the theory. Its opportunity came from an upscale shop in Dallas, Texas.

Sandra J. Pevsner was a manager for Sakowitz Yves St. Laurent Rive Gauche Boutique. As manager, she was expected to wear the dramatic, highly fashionable and avant-garde clothing the store sold. This meant dressing to kill at fashion shows and at business luncheons, but not off the job. Because she had to pay for these expensive and, as far as she was concerned, useless clothes. So she expected a tax deduction.

When the court ruled against the IRS, it appealed. The higher court, in a surprising decision, overturned the Tax Court. It disallowed the deduction, explaining that Pevsner’s lifestyle is unimportant. This clothing is suitable for general wear and therefore non-deductible because it’s worn by a significant, although affluent, segment of society.

The Moral: Clothes make the man - not always the deduction.

A.J. Cook is a lawyer and CPA. His tax column appears weekly in numerous newspapers. Why isn't it published in your hometown newspaper? Ask its Business Editor to subscribe.

Copyright © 1987-2001 A.J. Cook All Rights Reserved
This information is not intended for use without professional advise.
Disclaimer
Released 3-22-99 and 3-29-99