- 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 ordinary
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007