To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.

Discussion:Airline Attendants

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (add links)
Line 10: Line 10:
{{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Ckenefick|Date=6 April 2014|Text=Have you seen that discussion about a ''Hair Piece''...wherein many of these topics were covered, from haircuts of servicemen, to clothing, to makeup, to...''Hair Pieces''...?}}
{{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Ckenefick|Date=6 April 2014|Text=Have you seen that discussion about a ''Hair Piece''...wherein many of these topics were covered, from haircuts of servicemen, to clothing, to makeup, to...''Hair Pieces''...?}}
 +
 +
* ''[[Discussion:Hair Piece]] (includes several case cites); also see [[Discussion:Film at 11|this one on Anchorwoman / Hamper case]] among others''
{{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Spell Czech|Date=6 April 2014|Text=If this kind of stuff were really deductible, I would certainly expect the airline industry to be all over it, with publications and announcements and authoritative references and the like, all stating the terms and conditions that IRS would apply in deciding the deductibility of this stuff.  ''As much as I don't like "negative inference"'' I would insist that the absence of the industry's trumpeting the deductibility of black slacks and stockings, for example, is an indication, loud and clear, that this stuff - the cost of this stuff - is *not* deductible.  Expect to lose this one on audit.
{{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Spell Czech|Date=6 April 2014|Text=If this kind of stuff were really deductible, I would certainly expect the airline industry to be all over it, with publications and announcements and authoritative references and the like, all stating the terms and conditions that IRS would apply in deciding the deductibility of this stuff.  ''As much as I don't like "negative inference"'' I would insist that the absence of the industry's trumpeting the deductibility of black slacks and stockings, for example, is an indication, loud and clear, that this stuff - the cost of this stuff - is *not* deductible.  Expect to lose this one on audit.

Revision as of 18:14, 6 April 2014

Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Airline Attendants


Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Airline Attendants

Bbla (talk|edits) said:

6 April 2014
I have an Airline Attendant client who claims that her job allows tax deductions for (1.) Grooming, including hairdressing, hair and skin care products, nails. (2.) Sunglasses. (3.) Black Slacks, blouses, shoes.

She tells me other airline employees have advised that these deductions are OK. The only publication that I could find that specifically mentions some of these items is the Australian Gov't/Taxation Office publication "Information on income tax matters for flight attendants." Skin moisturisers and hair conditioners used to combat the dehydration effects of pressurization and lack of humidity in an aircraft cabin are deductible. No mention of Nails. Sunglasses are deductible if you work on the tarmac at an airfield servicing, refueling or loading aircraft. The publication also states under Compulsory Uniforms that you may be able to claim a deduction for shoes, stocks and stockings where they are an essential part of a distinctive compulsory uniform, the characteristics of which - color, style, type - are specified in your employer's uniform policy. IRS Publication 529 does not go into this much detail; however, the IRS Pub does state that Wristwatches are not deductible. Has anyone been audited that has claimed deductions for these types of expenses?

Marcilio (talk|edits) said:

6 April 2014
Robert C. & Martha J. Fryer vs. Commissioner, TCM 1974-26 ... Many employers, expressly or otherwise, establish standards to which their employees are expected to conform. Men are to be clean shaven and are often required to wear suits, ties, and clean shirts, and women are expected to be dressed attractively [sexist statement]. To conform to these requirements, employees must make expenditures which would not be required if they were at home or not on the job. Nevertheless, such expenditures for general personal grooming are inherently personal in nature and cannot be considered as business expenses.

Hairdressing is not deductible. I deduct skin moisturizers and hair conditioners for the reason stated, but have not gone through audit on that. The clothing that you mentioned sounds like part of the uniform, but may be questionable if they are suitable for everyday use.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

6 April 2014
Have you seen that discussion about a Hair Piece...wherein many of these topics were covered, from haircuts of servicemen, to clothing, to makeup, to...Hair Pieces...?

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

6 April 2014
If this kind of stuff were really deductible, I would certainly expect the airline industry to be all over it, with publications and announcements and authoritative references and the like, all stating the terms and conditions that IRS would apply in deciding the deductibility of this stuff. As much as I don't like "negative inference" I would insist that the absence of the industry's trumpeting the deductibility of black slacks and stockings, for example, is an indication, loud and clear, that this stuff - the cost of this stuff - is *not* deductible. Expect to lose this one on audit.

Tell the truth, Marcilio: You don't call it "skin moisturizers and hair conditioners" when you deduct it on your clients' tax returns, do you?

Nilodop (talk|edits) said:

6 April 2014
OP says "Airline Attendants". I'd separate stewards and stewardesses, as politically incorrect as that may be. I definitely insist on stewardesses being clean-shaven, and my personal proclivities do not include stewards who wear stockings. Maybe pantyhose. Uh oh, am I in big trouble for some sort of violation now?
Personal tools