- 18 -
Id. at 768 (emphasis supplied). We, thus, applied a subjective
test, which examines the suitability of the clothing for private
or personal wear by the taxpayer seeking the deduction.
The evidence indicates that the clothing purchased by
petitioner was suitable for ordinary street wear by her.
Although petitioner testified that she purchased the clothing for
work, she never stated (and there is no evidence) that it was
unsuitable, in terms of price, quality, or style, for her
personal wear. The requirement that her business wardrobe
consist of suits or dresses of a particular color (black or
white) does not, in and of itself, indicate that the clothes were
unsuitable for ordinary street wear by petitioner. See Hynes v.
Commissioner, supra at 1269, 1291 (deduction denied for the cost
of “regular business clothing * * * limited to colors and
patterns which would televise well”). Moreover, there is no
testimony or other evidence that she never wore the clothing away
from work. Thus, petitioner has failed to provide evidence that
she satisfied two of the three criteria for deductibility.8
8 The subjective test applied by this Court in Yeomans v.
Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 768 (1958) has been specifically
rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in favor
of an objective test, which denies a business expense deduction
for the cost of clothing that is “generally accepted for ordinary
street wear” (i.e., for ordinary street wear by people generally
rather than by the taxpayer specifically). Pevsner v.
Commissioner, 628 F.2d 467, 470 (5th Cir. 1980), revg. T.C. Memo.
1979-311, rehg. en banc denied, 636 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir. 1981).
Because petitioner fails the subjective test applied by this
(continued...)
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011