If you wear work clothes or a uniform for work, then you may deduct the costs and maintenance and dry cleaning of this clothing. However, the clothing must meet two requirements. First, it must be required for work. Second, it must NOT be suitable for everyday use. If the clothes are suitable to wear outside of work, then the dry cleaning expenses or business attire are not tax deductible. A good rule of thumb is that if you can wear it anywhere else, then you cannot deduct it.
To be able to get the benefit, you must be able to itemize your deductions.
Examples of professions that meet the dry cleaning deduction requirements include police officers, nurses and firemen. Often laborers who wear certain steel tipped boots that get concrete and oil stains that would not be suitable for outside of work qualify. Basically, if you can wear the items outside of work, they do NOT qualify.
If the IRS asks any questions, receipts provide proof that you spent the money on the clothes you are claiming a deduction for. Receipts for the amounts you spend maintaining your work clothes, such as for dry cleaning, shoe-shining and tailoring services are equally important since these costs are deductible too.
Include your clothing costs with your other "miscellaneous itemized deductions" on the Schedule A attachment to your tax return. Work clothes are among the miscellaneous deductions that are only deductible to the extent the total exceeds 2 percent of your adjusted gross income. Add all the deductions in this category together — other deductions include work-related travel, work tools and professional journals — and subtract two percent of your adjusted gross income. This is the amount you can deduct.
Remember, when you use TurboTax, we’ll help you determine which clothing qualifies for this deduction, and we’ll calculate how much you can deduct.
If you receive a clothing allowance or other type of reimbursement, then you must reduce your deductible expense by the amount of allowance you receive.
For several years, Anietra Hamper, a local television station anchor, claimed business deductions for clothing, contact lenses, haircuts, makeup, dry cleaning and other items unrelated to this topic.
She was required by contract to maintain a well-groomed appearance and wear specific styles of clothing and claimed that her clothes were purchased specifically to comply with these conditions and she justified it by saying that she would never buy the items for her own personal use.
She also claimed that the makeup (purchased at a department store) was specific for appearing on-air and the contacts were a different prescription than her normal ones and were just for reading the teleprompter.
The IRS ruled against her.
The Court reasoned that the restriction on the taxpayer’s selection of business attire, however, was not significantly different from that applicable to other business professionals who must also limit their selection of clothing to conservative styles and fashions. The Court further reasoned that the fact that the taxpayer chose not to wear the business clothing while away from the station did not signal that the clothing was not suitable for private and personal wear. In fact, as the Court noted, most professionals typically do not wear their business clothes for private or personal wear. Similarly, petitioner does not satisfy the requirement that her clothing not be suitable for everyday personal wear. Although she is required to purchase conservative business attire, it is not of a fashion that is outrageous or otherwise unsuitable for everyday personal wear. Given the nature of her expenditures, it is evident that petitioner’s clothing is in fact suitable for everyday wear, even if it is not so worn.
Petitioner typically purchased her makeup from Nordstrom’s and drugstores that sell ordinary cosmetics. The receipts offered into evidence do not indicate purchases for special makeup designed for on-camera use but simply indicate purchases for ordinary makeup suitable for everyday wear.
Petitioner’s expenditures for manicures, grooming, teeth whitening, and skin care are inherently personal expenditures. Although these expenses may be related to her job, expenses that are inherently personal are nondeductible personal expenses. As in Hynes v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. at 1292, the fact that petitioner’s employment contract with the station required her to maintain a neat appearance does not elevate these personal expenses to a deductible business expense.
Hamper v. Comm’r, TC Summary Opinion 2011-17
**I don't work for TT. Just trying to help. All the best.
***Say "Thanks" by marking as BEST ANSWER and clicking the thumb icon in a post and that I solved your question
**Mark the post that answers your question by clicking on "Mark as Best Answer" I am NOT an expert and you should confirm with a tax expert.
