Yeomans v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 61741.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 61741. |
| Citation | 30 T.C. 757 |
| Parties | BETSY LUSK YEOMANS, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James W. Allen, C.P.A., for the petitioner.
Jack D. Yarbrough, Esq., for the respondent.
During the taxable years petitioner was employed as fashion coordinator by General Shoe Corporation, of Nashville, Tennessee, and as such, she was required to attend various meetings of style and fashion experts in the shoe-manufacturing field, meetings attended by buyers and store executives, and to plan and stage style shows at which the various lines of shoes manufactured by her employer were presented. In her attendance at such meetings, it was expected that as such fashion coordinator she would appear in clothing of the most advanced styles and fashions, and at the style shows staged by her, would wear clothing appropriate to the particular type or line of shoes being shown. Some of the clothing worn by her at such meetings and in the staging of style shows, all of which was acquired at her own expense, was not suitable for her personal and private wear, as distinguished from business wear, and was not so worn. Held, that the expenditures made by petitioner for clothing used in the course of her employment and in earning her salary, and which was not suitable for personal and private wear and was not so worn by her, are proper deductions in computing net income for the taxable years. Held, further, that petitioner expended at least $375 in 1951 and $300 in each of the years 1952 and 1953 for the purposes stated. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540.
The respondent determined deficiencies in income tax against the petitioner as follows:
+--------------------------------+
¦Docket No. ¦Year ¦Deficiency ¦
+------------+------+------------¦
¦ ¦(1951 ¦$528.51 ¦
+------------+------+------------¦
¦60656 ¦(1952 ¦727.88 ¦
+------------+------+------------¦
¦61741 ¦1953 ¦593.80 ¦
+--------------------------------+
The only question for determination is whether petitioner is entitled to deductions for the cost of various items of clothing and accessories worn by her in the course of her employment, and if so, the amount thereof. Some of the adjustments entering into respondent's determination of the deficiencies herein are not in issue.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found as stipulated.
Petitioner is a native and resident of Nashville, Tennessee. She filed her income tax returns for the years herein with the district director of internal revenue for Tennessee. The returns were filed by the calendar year and on a cash basis.
Petitioner became an employee of General Shoe Corporation, in Nashville, in 1947, and continued as an employee up through the taxable years. Prior to 1947, she had been a professional violinist, and at time or for a period or periods not specified had assisted her mother in the operation of a ladies' specialty store under the name of Town & Country Shop. This shop handled the higher-priced range of ladies' clothes.
General Shoe Corporation, hereafter referred to as General Shoe, manufactures several lines of women's shoes, which it sells in its own retail stores and distributes to chain stores and independent retail outlets, Some of the shoes manufactured during the years herein were Valentine, a line of women's dress shoes; Fortunette, a line of casual shoes, in which some if not all featured wedged heels; Teen-Age shoes; and a Sears, Roebuck and Company line, which consisted of dress shoes.
In 1948 petitioner became fashion coordinator for General Shoe, which position she held during the taxable years involved. A part of her work was performed in conjunction with the style department of the company. She would obtain advanced style information from various sources and make recommendations as to color and basic outlines for shoe and heel treatment, so as to conform the finished product to the proper style. On occasion, she would purchase shoes made by other manufacturers for use by the General Shoe stylists. They would at times copy the style and design of such shoes. She assisted the sales department in promoting the acceptance and sale of the women's shoes produced by General Shoe by planning and staging style shows. In some instances, the shows would be private presentations to the shoe buyers and top executives of large retail establishments, such as Sears, Roebuck and Company. Other shows would be open to the public, and would usually be staged in, and in cooperation with, retail stores which stocked and sold the lines of shoes produced by General Shoe. Also in the course of her duties, petitioner established and maintained contacts with the fashion editors of such magazines as Vogue, Charm, Mademoiselle, Harper's Bazaar, and Glamour.
The advertising director made the plans and arrangements for the style shows at which General Shoe presented its various lines of shoes. Petitioner worked closely with him and the executives of the sales division. He and petitioner reported to the same official, the sales coordinator of the company.
Petitioner was a member of Fashion Group of America, which membership aided her in obtaining advance style information covering hats, gloves, scarfs, outfits, shoes, and stockings. She visited the fabric houses, undertaking to keep informed as to new and prospective developments in fabrics. She also made studies of leather and the trends therein both as to types of leather and the color.
In the course of her employment petitioner frequently made trips to various parts of the United States. Some of these trips were for the purpose of staging style shows, while others were for the purpose of learning and keeping abreast of the style and fashion trends and developments. In each of the taxable years, she spent approximately 2 weeks in New York in both March and September. On those trips, she would on some occasions work in store presentations, but usually her time was spent in meetings with other fashion people and with leather people, at which time the discussions had to do with what was ‘fashion right,‘ and what would be developed and disclosed as such. These New York trips she regarded as the most important trips made by her in the performance of her duties as fashion coordinator for General Shoe. Another trip which served to keep her abreast of the fashion trends in shoes was made in October of each year to attend the Chicago Shoe Fair. At this fair each shoe manufacturer would exhibit a pair of shoes for the following spring or summer. Fashion editors and buyers from all over the country would be in attendance. The stay in Chicago would be 4 or 5 days, and the activities would be continuous from breakfast through the evening. Another gathering place for shoe stylists, fashion people, and buyers was at a meeting held twice a year in St. Louis by one of the leather houses, which dealt in high-fashioned leather and from which General Shoe bought a considerable amount of leather. Petitioner usually attended these meetings.
It was customary for the fashion people in attendance at meetings such as those described to dress according to the most advanced styles, and to do credit to General Shoe as its fashion coordinator, petitioner deemed it essential that she be dressed in keeping with the styles worn by those in attendance. A fashion coordinator is a representative of the fashion world, and buyers, merchandise managers, and store executives expect her, by dress and appearance, to reflect a knowledge of the very advanced and coming fashions. To have dressed differently, petitioner felt, would have indicated that she ‘did not know what it was all about,‘ and would have reflected unfavorably upon General Shoe. Also, she was ‘trying to get ahead.’
From day to day, and for personal as distinguished from business wear, petitioner preferred a plainer and more conservative style of dress. As a consequence, some of the items of clothing and accessories which she bought and wore at meetings such as those described and at some of the style shows which she staged and directed, were acquired for business purposes only and were never worn by her for personal or individual uses.
In staging the style shows for General Shoe, petitioner did not do the modeling of the shoes shown. She would direct the show, and by microphone would comment on the shoes as they were being displayed by models employed for that purpose. She did usually wear shoes of the type that was being promoted, and dressed in what she considered a proper style of clothing to go with the shoes. She did not make changes of shoes or other clothing in the course of the show, but would wear the same outfit throughout.
In January of 1951, petitioner staged a style show in Portland, Oregon, for the purpose of demonstrating a line of casual shoes to executives of the Jantzen Company, a manufacturer of bathing suits, sweaters, skirts, and other sports clothes. For the purpose of showing the shoes in a manner she regarded as fitting and proper, petitioner had a sport skirt made to wear with the shoes that Jantzen Company wanted demonstrated. The color, style, and weight of the skirt were such that she never wore the skirt for her own personal use.
From Portland, petitioner went to Los Angeles, California, to attend a shoe convention, and while there appeared on a television show. For that appearance, she wore a dress sent to her by her mother for that particular occasion. The dress was of sheer material and had a full, pleated skirt, and seated as she was during the television appearance, petitioner thought that the impression it made was very good. In type and style, however, the dress was not suitable to petitioner for general wear, and she did not wear it again.
In March of 1951, petitioner went to Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the purpose of putting on a show for teen-agers. To dress the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hynes v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...12 (1943), affd. 146 F.2d 191 (9th Cir. 1944), because the clothes were a uniform not expected to be worn generally. In Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767 (1958), we established three criteria for the cost of clothing to be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense: (1......
-
Crawford v. Commissioner
...(2) the uniforms are not adaptable to general usage as ordinary clothing; and (3) the uniforms are not so worn. Yeomans v. Commissioner [Dec. 23,064], 30 T.C. 757, 767-769 (1958). The only issue here is whether the uniforms meet the second requirement. Almost all of the uniforms petitioner ......
-
Sharon v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...expenses. Many expenses, such as the cost of commuting (John C. Bruton, 9 T.C. 882, 885 (1947)) and ordinary clothing (Betsy Lusk Yeomans, 30 T.C. 757, 768 (1958)), are helpful and even necessary to an individual's employment, but they are not deductible under section 162(a) because they ar......
-
Patitz v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...as a condition of employment, (2) not adaptable to general use as ordinary clothing, and (3) not so worn. Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767 (1958). Mr. Moody stated on brief that the receipts for 2015 were lost because of Hurricane Matthew. Mr. Moody also stated on brief that the un......
-
Tax Court In Brief | Romana v. Commissioner | Miscellaneous Itemized Business Expenses And Accuracy-Related Penalty
...of employment, (2) it is not adaptable to general use as ordinary clothing, and (3) it is not so worn. See Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767 see also Deihl v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005- 287. Generally, the cost of a business wardrobe, even if required as a condition of employmen......
-
Writing Matters
...employment, (2) the clothing is not suitable for general or personal wear, and (3) the clothing is not so worn. Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 768 (1958). The first version sentence does not seem unreadable but clocks in at an atrocious 7.9 for Reading Ease and 24.8 for Grade Level. ......