No, this is not the story of a romantic breakup. This is a brief review of ordinary-and-necessary, the Section 162 mantra, as told by Judge Gale.

Specifically, this is the story of Melanie L. Thomas-Kozak, as told in 2014 T. C. Sum. Op. 104, filed 11/10/14.

Melanie is an engineer for Sunoco, the oil company. Melanie claims all sorts of employee unreimbursed business expenses, the vast majority of which bite the unsubstantiated dust. Sunoco is mostly generous in its reimbursement policy.

I’m focusing here on Melanie’s boots. Now Sunoco’s reimbursement policy covered “clothing needed for weather or safety conditions”, 2014 T. C. Sum. Op. 104, at p. 4. So Melanie bought a pair of boots to wear on the jobsites she visited as part of her job.

“Petitioner testified that $280 of the disputed amount pertained to steel-reinforced metatarsal boots that Sunoco required all personnel to wear on jobsites. She produced a receipt to substantiate the purchase…. Petitioner testified that the steel reinforcement in the boots ran above the ankle and that the boots were required for safety on jobsites. She testified that she requested reimbursement from Sunoco but was denied it because the company believed reimbursing her would require it to reimburse all contractors at its jobsites as well. Sunoco’s reimbursement policy, however, stated that the cost of work-related clothing needed for ‘weather/safety conditions’ was reimbursable.” 2014 T. C. Sum. Op 104, at pp. 21-22.

“The cost of clothing is deductible as an employee business expense only if the clothing is required for the taxpayer’s employment, unsuitable for general wear, and not worn for personal use. The clothing must be unsuitable for use outside of the taxpayer’s work environment and not actually used outside of that environment.” 2104 T. C. Sum. Op. 104, at p. 22. (Citations omitted).

But Judge Gale is generous, even if Sunoco is not.

“We are satisfied that petitioner has shown entitlement to deduct the cost of the boots. We readily accept the boots’ safety purpose and their required use on job sites as plausible. It is clear the boots are not suitable for other purposes, and we accept petitioner’s plausible testimony that Sunoco refused reimbursement out of concern that it not incur an obligation to purchase similar boots for others (notwithstanding the formal terms of Sunoco’s reimbursement policy for safety-related clothing).” 2014 T. C. Sum. Op. 104, at pp. 22-23.

So despite tossing 82% of Melanie’s deductions in one year, and 35% in the other, Judge Gale does give Melanie the boot.