- 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. InPage: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011