- 58 -
A The men was a little bit easier because most
of the time they would just have to have tuxedos. Our
requirement on the men was that they just couldn’t--you
can’t just walk into and buy a tuxedo at Men’s
Wearhouse and expect somebody to say, “Gee, that’s a
great looking piece of garment.” It’s how it’s
tailored and how it fits that has more intensity to it.
* * * * * * *
Q What was the rule with respect to the men as
to whether they were to wear the clothing purchased by
the company for reasons other than company purposes?
A There was a six month rule: they had to
rotate suits or tuxes, clothing, at least they couldn’t
wear the same tie and pushout or anything else like
that. And the suit had to be rotated out so that
nobody saw them and they could say, “Hey, you were
there in that suit yesterday or the day before.” * * *
Q What was the rule, if any, with respect to
whether the men could wear the clothing other than for
a company function?
A It was never stated as such but nobody did
it, only because you were always overdressed whenever
you went into something. I mean when you--the exact
same tie and shirt and went with the exact same suit so
it was a perfect fit and appearance. Now, you may have
six different ties and shirts for that suit. But, you
know, if you walked down the street in it you would
almost look like a model walking around.
The test for the deductibility of clothing costs as ordinary
and necessary business expenses under section 162 rests on three
criteria: The clothing must be (1) required or essential in the
taxpayer’s employment, (2) not suitable for general or personal
wear, and (3) not so worn. Hynes v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1266,
1290 (1980); Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767-768
(1958); Bernardo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-199. In
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011