TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron
Pepperdine University School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, April 4, 2011

Former TV Anchor Glad She Challenged IRS

Hamper Following up on my earlier post, Tax Court Denies Deduction for TV News Anchor's Clothing Expense: Columbus Dispatch, Former TV Anchor Glad She Challenged IRS:

Even the IRS acknowledged that former television news anchor Anietra Hamper kept meticulous records of the clothes and other items she bought for business use.

But detailed receipts weren’t enough. An IRS audit — and a tax judge — concluded that nearly all the business expenses that Hamper listed as deductions on her 2005-08 federal income-tax returns were invalid, and they slapped her with a bill for nearly $20,000.

“I would hate for anyone else to go through this,” said Hamper, 38, who decided to share her story as a tale of caution during tax season.

For years, Hamper had deducted the cost of the clothing she wore on air and for business functions, as well as other expenses she incurred while working as an anchor for WCMH-TV (Channel 4) and WBNS-TV (Channel 10) in Columbus.

Other TV anchors told her they did it, and professionals who prepared her taxes over the years told her it was fine. ...

Hamper thought her deductions were legitimate, so she took the case to U.S. Tax Court, where she explained the deductions to a judge last fall. The judge ruled against her in late February and ordered her to pay $16,492 in back taxes, plus a penalty of $3,298.

“The general rule is that, where business clothes are suitable for general wear, a deduction for them is not allowable,” the judge wrote. Most professionals, the decision said, “typically do not wear their business clothes for private or personal wear,” yet they cannot deduct the cost of those clothes.

The judge also ruled that most other items Hamper used as deductions were personal, not business, expenses. They included contact lenses that helped her read the teleprompter, makeup, haircuts, manicures, teeth whitening and subscriptions to magazines and newspapers.

The decision doesn’t surprise Donald B. Tobin, associate dean of the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Tobin teaches a class on federal income-tax law and uses the case of a saleswoman at a high-end clothing store as an example. In that case, the saleswoman argued that she had to wear clothing from the store while she worked, but that she never would have worn it otherwise, so she deducted the cost as a business expense. The IRS disallowed the deduction. “It only cares about whether you can use it, not if you actually do use it,” Tobin said. ...

She’s not ... happy about a New York Daily News story about the tax-court decision in her case. The story, which traveled around the world, listed thong underwear among the items she deducted.

(Hat Tip: Bob Kamman.)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/04/former-tv-anchor-.html

New Cases, News, Tax | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef0147e3b7524e970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Former TV Anchor Glad She Challenged IRS:

» Poor Anchorlady from Roth & Company, P.C.
Anietra Hamper, the Columbus, Ohio anchoress who tried to deduct her underthings as business expenses, has no regrets. The Columbus... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 4, 2011 5:56:48 AM

Comments

It would be helpful to see picks of her modeling the clothes, so we can all understand what is and is not deductible.

:)

Posted by: Gizmo | Apr 4, 2011 12:33:30 PM

Ms. Hamper should negotiate a new contract with her employers (Chanels 4 & 10) in Ohio, to provide her with the required clothing, make-up, grooming, etc as part of her remuneration. She may have to take a small pay-cut but it will be win-win situation.
She will not be left with a non-deductable expense. The Employer will have a deductable expense.

Posted by: A Aratoon | Apr 4, 2011 2:46:13 PM

Her job requires that she wear professional attire. How is it different than lawyers and bankers?

Posted by: Mark | Apr 6, 2011 11:25:03 AM