- 9 -
petitioners have not satisfied this requirement. We sustain
respondent’s determinations.
3. Utilities.--Petitioners claimed a deduction of $2,034
for utilities which respondent disallowed in full. As we
understand, the deduction claimed was for telephone expenses
incurred on petitioners’ home telephone. Petitioners have no
records substantiating these expenditures as expenses incurred in
petitioner’s trade or business. They apparently did not keep the
monthly telephone statements. Petitioners could have, but did
not, obtain copies of statements from the telephone company. In
addition, the cost of basic local telephone service with respect
to the first telephone line is a personal expense and is not
deductible. See sec. 262(b). We sustain respondent’s
disallowance of the deduction.
4. Robes and Dry Cleaning.--Petitioners claimed deductions
of $4,900 for robes and dry cleaning. Respondent allowed $1,000
for these items. Petitioner claims that, because of the nature
of his employment, he was required to wear business suits that he
would not otherwise have worn. But, even if this were correct,
the cost of clothing is only deductible if the clothing is of a
type specifically required as a condition of employment and is
not adaptable as ordinary clothing. This rule also applies to
the maintenance of such clothing. See Pevsner v. Commissioner,
628 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1980); Kalms v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011