- 7 -
Petitioner deducted $728 for "Clothing, Shoes and
Maintenance" in 1994. Petitioner testified these expenses were
incurred for suits, blazers, shoes, and dry cleaning so that he
may dress in an acceptable manner in the insurance business. The
expense of uniforms is deductible under section 162(a) if: (1)
The uniforms are of a type specifically required as a condition
of employment; (2) the uniforms are not adaptable to general
usage as ordinary clothing; and (3) the uniforms are not so worn.
See Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767-769 (1958); Beckey
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-514. It is clear from
petitioner's testimony that the articles of clothing claimed as
expenses were adaptable to general use. Therefore, petitioner's
clothing expenses are not deductible. The remaining expenses for
dry cleaning likewise constitute personal expenses and are not
deductible under section 162. See sec. 262.
Petitioner deducted approximately $15,529 for his legal
education expenses on his Schedules C for tax years 1994 and
1995. Included in this amount is the cost of travel to
California for the taking of law school examinations, examination
fees, tuition, books, lodging, and meals. Petitioner combined
some of these expenses with other expenses on his Schedules C
and, therefore, the amounts claimed are estimates. At trial,
petitioner testified he incurred an estimated $10,610 in
educational expenses. The only documentation petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011