2confidencegames
storyparadox2
13albion
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
2falsewitness
1madoff
1empireofpain
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
1falsewitness
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
LillianFaderman
Edmund Burke 360x1000
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
2albion
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
1lauber
2trap
6confidencegames
2defense
George F Wil...360x1000
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
8albion'
Betty Friedan 360x1000
Tad Friend 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch2
299
1theleasofus
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
Richard Posner 360x1000
1lafayette
1jesusandjohnwayne
3confidencegames
1confidencegames
3albion
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
199
4albion
1transcendentalist
7albion
1lookingforthegoodwar
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
Storyparadox1
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
AlexRosenberg
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch1
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
1trap
storyparadox3
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
2paradise
499
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
1albion
3paradise
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
2theleastofus
11albion
10abion
14albion
Learned Hand 360x1000
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
Gilgamesh 360x1000
3defense
1gucci
12albion
2transadentilist
11632
1defense
2lafayette
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
2lookingforthegoodwar
9albion
399
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
7confidencegames
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
2gucci
5albion
4confidencegames
5confidencegames
2jesusandjohnwayne
3theleastofus
1paradide
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
6albion
Maria Popova 360x1000

Julian Block is back with another fascinating tax decision from the past.

Exotic Dancer’s Breast Implants Are Deductible

Just because you incur expenses for business reasons doesn’t mean that they automatically qualify as deductible. The Internal Revenue Code stipulates that these outlays must be “ordinary and necessary” in relation to your business.

Moreover, the law generally categorizes what you spend to improve your appearance, general health or sense of well-being, as nondeductible personal expenses. It should come as no surprise, then, that lots of business-versus-personal disputes wind up being resolved by the courts.

A case in point is that of Cynthia Hess, known as “Chesty Love” in her show biz endeavors as an exotic dancer. The Hoosier hoofer persuaded the United States Tax Court to uphold a deduction for surgical implants to enlarge her bosom.

Fade to when Cynthia, then known as “Tonda Marie,” launched her topless career on the night club circuit. She was able to get gigs. But because of a hereditary deficiency, she had to settle for smaller earnings than other, better-endowed ecdysiasts. (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls— an admonition that those who, like me, are of a certain age, will remember as one of the running gag lines on Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In.) So Cynthia’s agent persuaded a willing client to undergo surgery that enlarged her bust size—first to 56FF and then to 56N. (No, those numbers aren’t misprints.)

With humongous stats and the new stage name of “Chesty Love,” she resumed performing and immediately experienced an uplift in earnings, an increase that was unquestionably fueled by chats with talk-show hosts, such as the celebrated chest connoisseur Howard Stern and Sally Jesse Raphael.

Cynthia’s career-enhancing move notwithstanding, her implant deduction fell flat with bluenose bureaucrats. The IRS contended that the Tax Court should characterize the outlays as nondeductible personal expenses.

Get real, responded Special Trial Judge Joan Seitz Pate, who reasoned that for someone like Cynthia, top-heavy breasts are business assets and implants are a necessary “stage prop.” Hence, no personal benefit derived by Cynthia from those particular implants, which, Judge Pate pointedly noted, are not the type usually sought by women seeking to enhance their personal appearance. Instead, it was Cynthia’s craving for more “checks to barer” that motivated the dancer to undergo surgery that so enlarged her breasts—each weighs about 10 pounds—that her appearance became “freakish.”

Even worse, as Cynthia testified, she and her husband routinely endure off-color, vituperative comments from people they encounter; consequently, she has decided to have the implants permanently removed when her exotic-dancing career ends.

To buttress her decision, the judge compared the implants to work clothes and uniforms, which are allowable only if they satisfy a two-step test: (1) required as a condition of employment and (2) unsuitable for everyday use. It was a cinch for Cynthia to get over the first hurdle; her large, cumbersome breasts are a “costume,” needed to retain her employment as a professional exotic dancer.

As for the second stipulation, the court cited Cynthia’s testimony that she would remove the implants each day, were that possible. As they cause bacterial infections and other serious medical problems, her understandable preference would be not to “wear” them while offstage.

Decision: Implants so extraordinarily large are “useful only in her business” and, therefore, deductible.

Post-decision publicity included an appearance on the Jerry Springer show. Cynthia told the audience that “My salary as a dancer went up in direct proportion to the size of my chest.” To view the interview, go to You Tube’s “Chesty Love on the Jerry Springer show.”


Julian Block is an attorney and author based in Larchmont, N.Y. He has been cited as: “a leading tax professional” (New York Times); “an accomplished writer on taxes” (Wall Street Journal); and “an authority on tax planning” (Financial Planning Magazine). Information about his books is at julianblocktaxexpert.com.

You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.

Originally published on Forbes.com on July 20th, 2012