Tax write-off question

[Poker CPA]

Gross incompetence. Your dad is 150% incorrect. Very EZ deduction. The pro golf comparason is WEAK. I smell lawsuit.

[iceman5]

I disagree with your father. I am a police officr and I can write off uniform shoes, a new gun, a flashlight etc. These are all tools that I need to do my job. You can easily make a case that sunglasses are a tool that you use to do your job better. They are not an article of clothing in this instance. I would claim them.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your father. I am a police officr and I can write off uniform shoes, a new gun, a flashlight etc. These are all tools that I need to do my job. You can easily make a case that sunglasses are a tool that you use to do your job better. They are not an article of clothing in this instance. I would claim them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the sunglasses are a necessary tool for my job. I guess the IRS might not see it that way though. In your case, a police officer *needs* to have a gun and flashlight, and it's hard to argue against that. There's a ton of gray area, but I'm guessing they'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer over the poker player. In their eyes I don't need the glasses to do my job.

I'll probably end up writing them off and taking my chances anyways. As far as I'm concerned, they're a necessary tool. Thanks for all the feedback guys.

[Poker CPA]

Here's the determining factor that defeats the personal use agrument. The purpose of sunglasses is to protect your eyes from sunlight and to make yourself more comfortable while outside, either driving a car or hitting a golf ball. Your sunglasses are worthless outside because they're prescription glasses. They cannot be used for outdoor activities, as noted above, because you are far-sighted, thus making them useless for anything other than sitting at a poker table. The IRS would have to prove there is a need for prescription sunglasses indoors other than poker for a farsighted individual. Pretty silly argument, unless he can show that the average male uses them to watch TV or to have sex. Its a "slam dunk".

[4_2_it]

From the IRS website. Prety clear you will lose if audited. It's up to you how aggressive you want to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Work Clothes and Uniforms

You can deduct the cost and upkeep of work clothes if the following two requirements are met. <ul type="square">
[*]You must wear them as a condition of your employment.
[*] The clothes are not suitable for everyday wear.[/list]
It is not enough that you wear distinctive clothing. The clothing must be specifically required by your employer. Nor is it enough that you do not, in fact, wear your work clothes away from work. The clothing must not be suitable for taking the place of your regular clothing.

Examples of workers who may be able to deduct the cost and upkeep of work clothes are: delivery workers, firefighters, health care workers, law enforcement officers, letter carriers, professional athletes, and transportation workers (air, rail, bus, etc.).

Musicians and entertainers can deduct the cost of theatrical clothing and accessories that are not suitable for everyday wear.

However, work clothing consisting of white cap, white shirt or white jacket, white bib overalls, and standard work shoes, which a painter is required by his union to wear on the job, is not distinctive in character or in the nature of a uniform. Similarly, the costs of buying and maintaining blue work clothes worn by a welder at the request of a foreman are not deductible.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Poker CPA]

I assume you are a professional and will be filing a business return such as a Schedule C, not as an employee as referenced "by 4 2 it". The "WORK CLOTHES and UNIFORMS" section of Publication 529, pages 3 and 8, is for employees of a business.

You on the other hand are running a business, and as such can deduct the costs of running your business. To be deductible, a business expense must be both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your field of business. Surely sunglasses are both common and accepted in the world of professional poker. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your business. Prescription glasses are both helpful and appropriate, due to the long hours at the tables and the need to see clearly. Prescription sunglasses for a farsighted individual are useless, unless sitting at a poker table. It doesn't get any easier than this at tax time.

Like I said "SLAM DUNK".

[adanthar]

What if you're nearsighted? I'm in the same situation and never considered that could be deductible, heh.

[ALawPoker]

CPA,

I'm actually near-sighted (I need the prescription to see the community cards and the other players' faces). Most of what you say still applies, but they will still be able to claim that the glasses have personal use. Do you stand by your advice?

[Poker CPA]

If you can answer yes to both "ordinary and necessary", then without question, YES. So many things with the IRS depend on facts and circumstances, its just presentation for the most part. It comes down to how you answer the first five questions an auditor will ask in the first five minutes of an audit. The case, as stated by you, is EZ. Best of Luck.

[Lottery Larry]

While we're at it, can we write off the Cat in the Hat hat and the plaid slacks I bought, to make people aware that I'm a goof at the tables and therefore an easy mark?