Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2019/09/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The basic test is whether an item is used/worn in day-to-day circumstances.? For example, a model's hair gel used only for a photo shoot but not otherwise might be a candidate.? So I would probably rule against the tatts, jewelry and hair gel since they were worn in public.? But, there are exceptions.? One is Hess v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Tax Court Summary Opinion 1994-79.? Cynthia Hess was an exotic dancer using the stage name "Tonda Marie", usually grossing around $500-750 per week.? Upon the advice of her agent, she began breast augmentation surgeries, arriving at a bust size of 56FF, with the implants weighing approximately 10 pounds.? After that, she re-entered the market as "Chesty Love" and her weekly income doubled.? A few years later, she received further augmentation to size 56N and her income increased to $70,000 over one 20-week period.? Her argument to the Tax Court was that the implants were akin to stage props from which she received no personal benefit, and in fact she would have breast reduction surgery after her dancing career was over.? The Tax Court agreed and upheld her deduction for depreciation of the implants. On 9/26/2019 9:50 AM, Robert Baron via LUG wrote: > ===On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:53 AM Don Dory via LUG <lug at > leica-users.org> > wrote: > >> I think it's all about expensing the Mini as a tax write off; if they >> never get audited it might even work. >> >> > I'd defer that issue to the Chairman of the OKCLUG Taxation Subcommittee > but I'd also wonder if all of the photographer's tattoos, jewelry and hair > gel could also be properly expensed. > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information