Corey L. Wheir - Page 16

                                       - 15 -                                         

          rule that, where business clothing is suitable for general wear,            
          the expense is more inherently personal than business related.              
          Donnelly v. Commissioner, 262 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1959), affg. 28             
          T.C. 1278 (1957); Roth v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 1450 (1952);                
          Roberts v. Commissioner, 10 T.C. 581 (1948), affd. 176 F.2d 221             
          (9th Cir. 1949); Drill v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 902 (1947).  Such            
          costs are not deductible even when it is shown that the expense             
          would not have been incurred but for the employment.  Stiner v.             
          United States, 524 F.2d 640 (10th Cir. 1975).  However,                     
          exceptions have been allowed where an item is useful only in the            
          business environment in question.  Hynes v. Commissioner, supra             
          at 1290.  This case, which does not involve clothing, can                   
          nevertheless be analogized with these general rules.                        
               With respect to petitioner's consumption of buffalo meat,              
          respondent has not challenged petitioner's argument that the meat           
          developed proteins and strength that enhanced his bodily                    
          physique.  However, there is no doubt that buffalo meat is also             
          consumed as food by nonbodybuilders, albeit not with the                    
          regularity and in the quantities consumed by petitioner.  On                
          balance, the Court holds that petitioner's expenses for buffalo             
          meat are inherently personal and are not deductible under section           
          262.  Respondent, therefore, is sustained on that portion of the            
          expenses at issue.  The shake drinks consumed by petitioner also,           
          in the Court's view, fall in this same category, and respondent             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011