{"id":25156,"date":"2014-04-15T07:10:42","date_gmt":"2014-04-15T12:10:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=25156"},"modified":"2014-04-15T07:11:40","modified_gmt":"2014-04-15T12:11:40","slug":"are-breast-implants-tax-deductable-only-if-theyre-extraordinarily-large","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2014\/04\/15\/are-breast-implants-tax-deductable-only-if-theyre-extraordinarily-large\/","title":{"rendered":"Are breast implants tax-deductable? Only if they’re “extraordinarily large”"},"content":{"rendered":"

For some reason, the following report at the Tax Foundation<\/em> website does not have any images to accompany the story<\/a>:<\/p>\n

In filing one\u2019s taxes, it may be necessary to distinguish between breast implants that are merely \u201clarge,\u201d and breast implants that are \u201cextraordinarily large.\u201d<\/p>\n

The relevant ruling on this subject came in 1994 in a case known as Hess v. Commissioner<\/em>. The plaintiff, a self-employed exotic dancer, had implants that expanded her bust size to the size 56FF. For tax purposes, she treated these as a deductible business expense on her schedule C. The IRS contested her deduction.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

The relevant issue in Hess<\/em> was whether breast implants \u2013 traditionally thought of as a luxury good bought for personal benefit \u2013 could be considered a legitimate business expense. Given that the plaintiff was an exotic dancer, she had a fair argument. But in general, taxpayers aren\u2019t allowed to treat personal appearance expenditures as business expenses unless they aren\u2019t suitable for personal use. Hess, arguing pro se<\/em>, convincingly established that her implants were inconvenient in everyday life due to the sheer enormity of her breasts. The courts ruled in her favor:<\/p>\n