- 59 -
applying the second prong, some cases have reflected a subjective
gloss, while others have taken an objective approach. For
instance, as this Court recently explained:
The subjective test applied by this Court in
Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 768 (1958) [“not
suited for her private and personal wear”] 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 * * * [Bernardo v.
Commissioner, supra.]
We further noted that the objective test “casts a wider net.”
Id.
Here, petitioners cite Yeomans v. Commissioner, supra, while
respondent points to Pevsner v. Commissioner, supra. However,
the difference in approaches is immaterial in that petitioners
have not established that they met either test. A substantial
majority of the outfits revealed in photographs introduced by
petitioners of various events and conventions, albeit often
formal, are tasteful and would not be out of place in a myriad of
business or social settings where participants are expected to
“dress up”. Although a few of the ensembles do trend toward the
“costume” appellation that petitioners urge, petitioners have
made no attempt to show any linkage between specific charges and
the corresponding articles of clothing. Hence, petitioners
clearly fall short of deductibility under an objective approach.
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011