- 10 -
In the light of petitioner’s testimony regarding her need to
keep patient medical records at home and the aforementioned
receipt from Office Max that petitioner provided to the Court, we
hold that petitioner is entitled to a deduction of $387.28 for
supplies.
With respect to the $1,236 and $425 in unreimbursed employee
expenses for uniforms/protective clothing and shoes/stockings
/socks, petitioner testified that she would not wear either the
clothing or stockings that she wore to work outside of work,
although she did admit they would be suitable for wear outside of
work. Articles of clothing, including shoes, stockings, and
socks are deductible under section 162(a) only if the clothing is
required in the taxpayer’s employment, is not suitable for
general or personal wear, and is not worn for general or personal
purposes. Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767-768 (1958).
Petitioner testified that there was no dress code or uniform
requirement at the medical center where she worked, and that even
though she was not inclined to wear the clothing in question when
she was not at work, the clothes were, in fact, suitable for
general wear. In fact, petitioner acknowledged at trial that she
was actually wearing some of the clothes that she purchased for
work in 2002. Therefore, and on the record before us, we find
that petitioner is not entitled to the deductions she claims for
clothing, shoes, stockings, and socks for her 2002 taxable year,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008