“I create a lot of videos for my business, can I write off my braces?”
“I have to wear suits to work. I can deduct those as a business expense, right?”
“I want to write off the cost of my therapist. I wouldn’t be able to run my business without them.”
We’ll get asked somewhat frequently if people can write off things like business attire, plastic surgery, veterinary costs for their animals, therapy, etc.
And sometimes the deductibility of these items seems very reasonable. You’re a lawyer and your job requires you to wear suits. Or you’re a content creator and getting some sort of cosmetic procedure to improve your appearance will likely increase your business revenues.
Those have to be deductible, right?
Unfortunately, no. Unlike most business expenses, the IRS takes a pretty hard stance on these categories. If there is a personal wellness/general personal benefit associated with purchases in these categories, it is going to be very hard to defend in an audit.
We’re going to break this up into a few main sections:
Clothing and Business Attire
Clothing can be one of the most difficult items to deduct as a business expense. Because even if the item is a requirement for your job, if it can be worn outside of work then it likely cannot be deducted.
Pevsner v. Commissioner, 628 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1980) is a great example of this. Sandra Pevsner was a sales manager at the luxury clothing store Yves Saint Laurent. As a condition of her employment she was required to purchase clothing from Yves Saint Laurent to wear at work. Understandably, she deducted these costs on her tax return.
The IRS disagreed and the parties went to court.
There are three tests on the deductibility of writing off work clothing. For it to be a deductible business expense, all three must be met:
1. “The clothing is of a type specifically required as a condition of employment
2. It is not adaptable to general usage as ordinary clothing
3. It is not so worn” – meaning the clothing is not worn outside of work
We’ve already established that the clothing was a condition of Pevsner’s employment. And in tax court she testified that “she did not wear the clothes during off-work hours because she felt that they were too expensive for her simple everyday lifestyle.”
However, she failed on that second point: the clothing was such that she could have worn it outside of work. Because of that, she lost the case and the deduction was disallowed.
There are other court cases that had similar outcomes. In both Hynes v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1266 (1980) and Hamper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-17, newscasters were not allowed to deduct suits and other business attire.
On the flip side, in Romana v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2022-9 a nurse was able to deduct the cost of her scrubs, lab coat, and associated dry cleaning costs – as those items were not adaptable to general, everyday usage.
Dental Work and Plastic Surgery
In general, the IRS only allows you to deduct necessary medical expenses on Schedule A as itemized deductions. In Pub 502 it specifically excludes cosmetic surgery:
“Generally, you can’t include in medical expenses the amount you pay for cosmetic surgery. This includes any procedure that is directed at improving the patient’s appearance and doesn’t meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease. You generally can’t include in medical expenses the amount you pay for procedures such as face lifts, hair transplants, hair removal (electrolysis), and liposuction.”
That’s not to say that IRS guidance is absolutely set in stone. In Mattes v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 650 (1981), the taxpayer was successfully able to deduct a hair transplant. He argued that it was treating a medical condition (male pattern baldness) and was restoring a bodily function. Surprisingly, the tax court agreed.
But in general? The courts have absolutely sided with the IRS and their stance on the issue.
Even for necessary medical expenses, those are counted as itemized expenses and not business expenses.
One significant outlier to that was Hess v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-22. Cynthia Hess was an exotic dancer who went by the stage name “Chesty Love”. She deducted the cost of her size 56FF breast implants as a business expense. The IRS – unsurprisingly – moved to disallow the deduction. The tax court actually ruled in Hess’s favor and allowed the deduction, but the circumstances surrounding it were incredibly specific. These are easily some of the most unusual quotes you will ever read in a tax court case:
“At the urging of her agent, in 1988, petitioner underwent multiple medical procedures to replace and to substantially enlarge her implants, and which finally expanded her bust size to an abnormally large size (56FF). The implants were so large that they each weighed approximately 10 pounds. During 1988, she was reintroduced into the market under the stage name of “Chesty Love”. At that time her fees almost doubled.”
Because of this she dealt with numerous medical issues, including an infection where “she could not work at all during 1989.”
“The sole reason she enlarged her breasts to such a horrendous size was to increase her success (and concomitantly her income) as a professional exotic dancer.”
“Petitioner views the implants as a necessary “stage prop” that has demonstrably increased her earnings.”
The court noted that most of the existing case law on medical procedures “were expenses ordinarily expended by individuals in furtherance of good health and maintaining an attractive appearance and, thus, were inherently personal. In contrast, petitioner’s expenditures were detrimental to her health and contorted her body into a grotesque appearance, [*10] all for the purpose of making money. Thus, even though the implants were surgically made a part of her body, we are convinced that they were not inherently personal in nature.”
“In addition to medical problems, petitioner and her husband were subjected to considerable humiliation because of the size of her breasts. Petitioner was ridiculed by people on the street, her husband suffered off-color comments and insults, and she was ostracized by most of her family. Consequently, when her career as a professional exotic dancer is over, petitioner plans to have the implants permanently removed.”
Basically, the implants were so extreme in nature and clearly detrimental to the taxpayer’s overall wellbeing – while also demonstrably increasing their business income – that they were able to be deducted.
But the case is the only one of its kind. And should showcase just how borderline impossible it would be to deduct any normal medical procedures as business expenses.
Childcare During Work Hours
What about if you need childcare during work hours? After all, you need someone to watch your kids in order to run your business.
Unfortunately, the IRS also considers this a personal expense.
In Smith v. Commissioner, 40 B.T.A. 1038 (1939), a couple tried to deduct the cost of a nanny to look after their infant child. The court summarized the couple’s position and their reasoning for disagreeing with it:
“Petitioners would have us apply the “but for” test. They propose that but for the nurses the wife could not leave her child; but for the freedom so secured she could not pursue her gainful labors; and but for them there would be no income and no tax. This thought evokes an array of interesting possibilities. The fee to the doctor, but for whose healing service the earner of the family income could not leave his sickbed; 1 the cost of the laborer’s raiment, for how can the world proceed about its business unclothed; the very home which gives us shelter and rest and the food which provides energy, might all by an extension of the same proposition be construed as necessary to the operation of business and to the creation of income. Yet these are the very essence of those “personal” expenses the deductibility of which is expressly denied. Revenue Act of 1936, section 24(a).”
Given that both spouses are working in about 65% of households combined with the rising and sometimes exorbitant costs of childcare, it is frustrating that childcare costs are not deductible. But that is the settled law.
Taxpayers may be eligible for a credit for child and dependent care or could contribute to a dependent care FSA, but those cap out at $1,200 and $5,000 respectively.
Therapy, Gym, and Wellness Expenses
Next let’s talk about things like therapy, gym memberships, and other wellness expenses. I’ve had clients tell me “I literally could not run my business without my therapist. I would not be doing as well as I’m doing without their help.” And fair enough – therapists are immensely helpful.
The problem is the same as what we run into with other items on this list. Yes, your therapy sessions absolutely helped you function better and thereby run your business more effectively. But did they also help you function better in life in general? The obvious answer is yes.
And when you get a personal benefit from it, the IRS counts it as a personal expense and “personal, living, or family expenses are generally not deductible.”
You’ll run into the exact same issue with gym memberships and wellness retreats. Being in good shape gives you more energy, allows you to work longer, and generally stay more focused. You can absolutely make the case that it helps your business.
But it also helps you personally so…no go.
That’s not to say there are never instances where these items – and items like them – are deductible. If prescribed by a doctor, therapy and other wellness costs would likely qualify as deductible itemized medical expenses.
But to deduct it as a business expense, you basically need to be a pro athlete. That was affirmed in Sugar Ray Robinson’s case against the IRS (Robinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1965-226). Because he was a professional boxer the tax court found that the “claimed expense for use of training facilities held deductible.” Similarly, the IRS settled a case (so no precedent was set) with NBA player Lamar Odom over his deduction of personal trainer costs.
Makeup and Haircuts
Makeup and haircuts are also not typically deductible. In Hamper v. Commissioner (discussed earlier in the section on business clothing), the court also denied the cost of makeup and haircuts. Regarding makeup it noted:
“Petitioner also purchased makeup and testified that the makeup was designed for on-the-air appearances and provided significantly more coverage than ordinary makeup.
Petitioner typically purchased her makeup from Nordstrom’s and drugstores that sell ordinary cosmetics. The receipts offered into evidence do not indicate purchases for special makeup designed for on-camera use but simply indicate purchases for ordinary makeup suitable for everyday wear. The Court is unable to determine whether the makeup she purchased was primarily for business use.”
On haircuts it noted that:
“Petitioner also obtained regular haircuts and manicures. Other maintenance expenditures included teeth whitening and skin care product purchases.
Petitioner’s expenditures for manicures, grooming, teeth whitening, and skin care are inherently personal expenditures. Although these expenses may be related to her job, expenses that are inherently personal are nondeductible personal expenses.”
If you were an actor in a movie or commercial and were getting specialized haircuts or makeup solely for that role, then perhaps the cost could be deductible. However, in many such cases, those services are typically provided and paid for by the production company.
Deducting the costs of these services would need to be specialized and bordering on a costume to be deductible.
Pets and Animals
We love our pets. And it can be really expensive to take care of them. So of course it would be nice to be able to write those costs off.
But the same scrutiny applies here as it does in the other categories of this article.
In Stone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-40, the court disallowed the deduction for costs associated with the animals – partially because the animals spent most of the time in the taxpayer’s home:
“With regard to the balance of the disputed items, we have reviewed the record and sustain respondent’s determinations. Deductions were claimed for petitioners’ cats and dogs on the respective grounds that they were necessary to control the mouse populations and provide security at the shop. The animals, at least for the most part, were located at the residence.”
Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-22 was similar for a taxpayer who wanted to deduct his family dog as a security/guard dog:
“Rodriguez did not credibly testify that the dogs were primarily guarding business property, and we find that these expenses are just for his family dogs. They are not deductible.”
That’s not to say that no costs associated with animals are deductible.
In Seawright v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-110, the IRS even conceded that:
“Petitioners are entitled to a $300 business expense deduction for cat food that petitioners purchased and set out in their scrap yard for the purpose of attracting wild cats to deter snakes and rats.”
And in Cox v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-288 the IRS also allowed the cost of a guard dog at a mechanic’s shop:
“The business was not in the most desirable section of Houston; as Cox pointedly testified, the IRS did not contest his deduction for the cost of a guard dog.”
You may also be able to deduct the cost of guide and therapy dogs as medical expenses, although there are limitations.
But in both cases, they need to be actual, legitimate business-purpose or medical-purpose animals. Not our pets that may provide some secondary benefit.
The Importance of Documentation
Even in those rare cases where personal-type expenses can be legitimately deducted, documentation is critical. If you’re ever audited, the IRS isn’t going to take your word for it.
If you’re claiming a deduction:
- Keep receipts, invoices, and proof of payment
- Include written explanations of business purpose
- For items like guard dogs or uniforms, take photos showing how they’re used in the business or are not adaptable to personal use
- For unusual deductions (like junkyard cat food), keep supporting evidence like business ads or news coverage
In borderline situations, thorough documentation can make or break your case.
Conclusion
For all of these areas, there are instances where you can credibly deduct costs as business expenses. But the barrier is very high. Be very cautious when expensing them and ensure you actually meet the necessary criteria before doing so.
Any accounting, business, or tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute for a formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to avoid tax-related penalties.
