- 16 -
clothing. Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767-769 (1958);
Beckey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-514.
We are satisfied that petitioners incurred deductible
expenses to clean Mr. Farran’s uniforms. Mr. Farran gave unclear
testimony, however, regarding how he calculated the cleaning
costs. Petitioners introduced a document on the letterhead of
his CPA that purports to indicate how the sum was calculated, but
it suggests an excessive amount, 22 cleanings for shirts and
pants and 2 for jackets per month. Mr. Farran estimated he
worked 22 days per month and wore one shirt per day. At trial,
Mr. Farran conceded that petitioners are not entitled to deduct
cleaning expenses for uniforms for the months he was unemployed.
We may estimate the amount of deductible cleaning expenses
under the Cohan rule. We adopt the unit cost of $1.35 listed on
petitioners’ exhibit as the cost to wash or dry one load of
laundry. We find that approximately eight loads of laundry for
each of the 5 months Mr. Farran worked is a reasonable number to
yield 22 clean shirts and pants and 2 jackets per month.
Petitioners are therefore entitled to deduct $108 of uniform
cleaning expenses in 2003.
Tool Expenses
Petitioners claimed $831 for tools Mr. Farran used as an
airline mechanic, and the parties stipulated that petitioners are
entitled to deduct $90.58. A taxpayer is entitled to deduct
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007