Maintaining appearances is practically a requirement for many careers, including for sales professionals, executives, and brand ambassadors/influencers. There’s also no doubt that maintaining appearances is not free: surgeons, stylists, and of course clothing.
A valid question might be: if the costs of maintaining appearances are required for my profession, is there a tax deduction?
I.R.C. § 162(a) allows a deduction for all ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or business. By itself, this statute might produce all kinds of deductions which the Service might not agree with. So, over the years, the IRS has opined more specifically on various questions of deductibility.
Clothing
In Revenue Ruling 70-474, 1970-2 C.B. 34, the IRS ruled on the deductibility of clothing, and concluded that an employee may deduct uniforms/clothing if they are: 1) specifically required as a condition of employment, and 2) not suitable for general/ordinary wear (based on the facts of and circumstances of the particular situation).
As an example of clothing which would generally be deductible is "period" clothing or costumes purchased by an actor for a role. Another (perhaps obvious) example would be a police uniform. [1]
In the context of executives, sales professionals, etc. it’s the second requirement which will prevent most clothing purchases from being deductible. Unless the clothing is so atypical that it could reasonably be considered a “costume” never to be worn outside of the business function, then the IRS is most likely going to conclude that the clothing could be worn in a personal context and thus no deduction is allowed.
Stylists, Appearance and Image
Somewhat similar to clothing, the IRS looks to whether there is personal benefit toother appearance-related costs like make-up artists, stylists, personal trainers, and plastic surgeons. Per the IRS, these are generally found to be personal expenses as the inherently personal nature of the expense and the personal benefit far outweigh any potential business benefit. Thus, no deduction is allowed for these costs which solely maintain an image for the taxpayer. [2]
Summary
The costs discussed are mostly subjective by nature. The IRS goes as far as to use the phrase “…too personal” to describe a deduction in question. [3] This phrasing illustrates the judgement required in analyzing the facts and circumstances.
As a general rule, if you can personally benefit from these costs, then the IRS is unlikely to allow it as a deduction, by default giving more weight to the personal benefit over the business necessity.
Note that this contrasts with other parts of the tax law wherein you may be allowed to bifurcate (i.e., split) costs amongst business and personal use, and deduct only the business portion (e.g., listed property, like vehicles).
Feel free to reach out and discuss any particular questions you may have. AdditiveCPA.com
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. Department of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. (2015). Memorandum for Federal, State, and Local Government Employees: Tax Treatment of Uniforms Issued to Government Employees by Fire and Police Departments. Retrieved fromhttps://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/FSLG_Directive_Tax_Treatment_of_Uniforms.pdf.
[2] U.S. Department of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. (1995). Audit Techniques Guides MSSP: CHAPTER 8 - PERSONAL EXPENSE ISSUES.
[3] Id.
