Franchise Uniforms - Deductible?

[SunTaxMan]

Subway franchise restaurant owner. Franchise requires specified "uniforms" with Subway logo to be worn. Business owner buys uniforms for all employees. Doesn't seem to fit the "not suitable for street wear" description. No sensible risk of grease, oils, etc, contaminaton, that would make them "not suitable for street wear" (as in vehicle mechanic's uniforms.) I am thinking this is NOT a deductible expense for the business, as "uniforms.". Could this be deductible as an employee "benefit?" (Owner and all employees wear the uniform.) Thoughts?

[grandmabee]

I would deduct them as uniforms. If you were not an employee who would wear them? I have even seen companies buy hats with the names on them and give them out and that goes to advertising.

[SunTaxMan]

I would deduct them as uniforms. If you were not an employee who would wear them? I have even seen companies buy hats with the names on them and give them out and that goes to advertising.

bcolleen,

I still have reservations. "...who would wear them?" This could include any number or caliber of persons - including, but not limited to the people who wear clothing that says "FBI" or "NYPD" or "Land's End." I see no difference in this and any person who likes Subway or Philadelphia Eagles and would wear their shirt, jacket, etc. The "uniforms" in question have not been "given away as advertising," but provided, as a necessary item of attire on the job, to employees.

As far as "hats with name on them...advertising," I understand the advertising perspective - these items were indeed given away so advertising could be accomplished. As far as "advertiting" for clothing worn "in-house" or "on the job" by employees, the limitation I have seen used is the actual cost of the advertising symbol, or embroidery, not the entire cost of the piece of clothing (UNLESS that piece of clothing was in reality, "not-suitable for street wear," as in a vehicle mechanic's 'uniform.')

I do wonder, along these lines of thinking, whether these "uniform" items could be diminis employee benefit, AS clothing - never mind the advertising benefit.

I do appreciate your comment. One of the advantages of this board is the motivation to "think," often "outside the box." I agree that this is the way "uniforms" have often been deducted over the years, but I question the ability for this reasoning to withstand an audit.

[Kea]

Since it is required in the franchise agreement, I would consider it a "reasonable & necessary" cost of operating the business. I would think the "not suitable for street wear" requirement applies to the employee, not to the employer. But, I don't have much experience with employers' returns.

[SunTaxMan]

Since it is required in the franchise agreement, I would consider it a "reasonable & necessary" cost of operating the business. I would think the "not suitable for street wear" requirement applies to the employee, not to the employer. But, I don't have much experience with employers' returns.

It would seem "required" and "...employee" would be enough to "tip the scales" in favor of deducting..... Let's see what the next 24 hours produces in comments.

Thanks,

[Pacun]

"Doesn't seem to fit the "not suitable for street wear" description."

Sun Taxman

You seem too conservative with this one.

[SunTaxMan]

I have been accused of this before. I do appreciate your observation.

[Catherine]

"Not suitable for street wear" is NOT the same thing as "cannot be worn in the street".

Hospital scrubs can be worn outside of hospitals/medical offices (frequently by people on their way to/from work) -- but no one mistakes them for "normal" clothing.

A shirt with the "SUBWAY" logo emblazoned on it is 1) obviously a uniform and 2) free advertising for the chain. The situation would be different if it were, say, just polo shirts in red (or blue, or green) with no logo.

[michaelmars]

Was this post started on april fools day? Catherine is right. even a cop can wear his uniform to the movies but its still a uniform! I think the best test is can just anyone purchase this item.

[Pacun]

Was this post started on april fools day? Catherine is right. even a cop can wear his uniform to the movies but its still a uniform! I think the best test is can just anyone purchase this item.

Now, let me add a twist to this. Do you know that the police pants are regular, blue, dress pants? The same is tru for most restaurants, they buy the shirts with logos and they wear black pants, what do you deduct for those restaurant workers?

[Catherine]

Now, let me add a twist to this. Do you know that the police pants are regular, blue, dress pants? The same is tru for most restaurants, they buy the shirts with logos and they wear black pants, what do you deduct for those restaurant workers?

I like the "can just anyone buy these" test. If you can get them off the rack at Sears (or Target or Macy's or Cabela's), then they are "normal" clothes and don't qualify. If you get them at Cabela's or Lands' End through their custom department, embroidered in a specific style and color with logos or names (employee or company), then it's a uniform.

Not just restaurant workers -- I go through this _every_ year with a client who works at a hair salon that requires black slacks and black top. "But I'd _never_ wear this!" she whines. "It doesn't matter that they are not to your taste or style. You bought them off the rack at Kohl's; they do NOT count," is my reply.

[GeneInAlabama]

I would deduct as uniforms and not give it a second thought.

[Lion EA]

Employer provides clothing with company name on it to his employees, requiring them to wear the sanctioned uniforms, required by franchisor to have his employees wear those uniforms, I'd deduct it as uniforms.

[bstaxes]

I would deduct it as a condition of employment. I have a client who purchased jeans and shirts from a uniform company, who also does the laundring of the uniforms, with the company name on the shirt. Nothing on the jeans and yes I deduct this. The business is repairs of small engines and the uniforms do get greasy.

I guess the jeans should have in big letters the company name across the backside of the pants, but the company name is just too darn long to fit on any ones back side.

[kcjenkins]

The key element here is that it is the EMPLOYER who is buying these, as a necessary part of his complying with his franchise agreement. So YES, it is deductible. While if the employees bought them, they would not be, for the business it's a reasonable and necessary business expense.

[samingeorgia]

Would you wear this to a religious observance? To a party not sponsored by the employer? To a job interview? This is the kind of questions I would ask.

[jainen]

>> if the employees bought them, they would not be<<

Why would not similar standards apply? Can a self-employed person deduct clothing that an employee can not? If the company provides free clothing suitable for everyday wear it might be a taxable fringe benefit.

Note to michaelmars: If a cop wore his uniform to a movie, other than on official business, I would deduct it as a medical expense because it would prove he is totally insane.

[michaelmars]

>> if the employees bought them, they would not be<<

Note to michaelmars: If a cop wore his uniform to a movie, other than on official business, I would deduct it as a medical expense because it would prove he is totally insane.

Can't argue with that logic.

[ILLMAS]

Today one of my client who is a sales rep for a pots and pan company asked me why she couldn't deduct business suits she buys to use for her presentation, she tells me that other reps do deduct it. So I asked her, if you were invited to a wedding, is this a suit you can wear to the wedding?? She is like no, I usually go very elagant to my friends and family weddings. Okay that answer is still NO.

[Pacun]

Marco,

Print it and give it to your client to read.

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

[Don in Upstate NY]

Would you wear this to a religious observance?

Might not be a good criterion any more. The "Sunday Best" clothes at our church often include ratty tee-shirts with questionable logos and unlaced sneakers without socks. And the kids dress even worse. :dunno:

[Gail in Virginia]

Marco,

Print it and give it to your client to read.

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

Thanks for posting that, Pacun. I have been having this argument with a client for a couple of years now, and this might just help. I don't what will explain it to the truck driver that just left that thought he should be able to deduct his blue jeans, because he only wore them to drive the truck. However, he had a pair of them on in my office, and he had not been working today....

[JohnH]

I also say deduct the Subway uniforms purchased by the owner.