- 20 -
within the meaning of section 162(a)(2). Accordingly,
petitioners are not entitled to deduct the cost of Mr. Marple’s
meals as a business expense under section 162.13
3. Work Clothing
The cost of clothing is generally a nondeductible personal
expense within the meaning of section 262, even if the clothing
was in fact used exclusively for work. See Barone v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 462, 469 (1985), affd. without published
opinion 807 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1986). The cost of clothing may
be deductible as a business expense under section 162(a) where
(1) the clothing is required or essential in the taxpayer’s
employment, (2) the clothing is not suitable for general or
personal wear, and (3) the clothing is not worn for general or
personal purposes. Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767-768
(1958).
Mr. Marple purchased jeans and work boots during the year in
issue which he wore while employed as a sheet metal worker. Mr.
Marple testified the items were “normal” jeans and work boots.
There is no evidence that the items were unsuitable for general
or personal wear, nor is there evidence that Mr. Marple did not
13 We note that expenses for meals are subject to strict
substantiation under sec. 274, discussed supra note 9.
Petitioners did not introduce any receipts or other documentary
evidence substantiating Mr. Marple’s meal expenses. Petitioners’
failure to meet the substantiation requirements of sec. 274(d)
for Mr. Marple’s meal expenses would appear to provide an
alternative basis for our holding disallowing petitioners’
claimed meal expense deduction.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007