- 14 -
are of a type specifically required as a condition of employment,
the uniforms are not adaptable to general use as ordinary
clothing, and the uniforms are not worn as ordinary clothing.
Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767-769 (1958); Beckey v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-514.
We are satisfied that petitioner incurred deductible
expenses for uniform cleaning. Petitioner gave unclear
testimony, however, regarding how he calculated the $722 for
cleaning costs. Petitioner introduced a document on the
letterhead of his CPA that also purports to indicate how the sum
was calculated, but it suggests an excessive amount, 22 loads of
laundry per month, which was the number of days he estimated he
worked each month.
We may estimate the amount of deductible cleaning expenses
under the Cohan rule. Petitioner testified that he paid
approximately $1.50 per load of laundry. We find that petitioner
did approximately eight loads of laundry per month at $1.50 for
each wash cycle and for each dry cycle. Petitioner is therefore
entitled to deduct $288 of uniform cleaning expenses in 2003.
Depreciation Expenses
Petitioner deducted $1,842 for depreciation of the tools he
used at his job at NWA. The costs of tools with useful lives
greater than a year are recoverable by depreciation. Secs.
167(a), 168(b); Seawright v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 294, 305
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007