- 15 - demonstrates that he or she could not have been reimbursed for such expenses by his or her employer. Sec. 162(a); Podems v. Commissioner, 24 T.C. 21, 23 (1955). Petitioners offered no receipts from the store where the safety shoes were allegedly purchased. Moreover, petitioners failed to show that NWA did not reimburse Mr. Wasik for the safety shoes. Petitioners have not provided adequate substantiation for this claimed expense. Petitioners are therefore not entitled to a deduction for safety shoes for 2003. Supplies Petitioners claimed $300 for supplies during 2003. Mr. Wasik acknowledged at trial that he was not sure what supplies he sought to deduct on the return. Petitioners offered no testimony regarding what specific supplies Mr. Wasik needed for his job or even what supplies petitioners sought to deduct. We conclude that petitioners are not entitled to a deduction for supplies for 2003. Cleaning Expenses for Uniforms Petitioners claimed $720 for cleaning expenses for Mr. Wasik’s NWA uniforms. Expenses for uniforms are deductible if the uniforms 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 ordinaryPage: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007