<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Strictly business, Your Honor	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2014/04/strictly-business-honor/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2014/04/strictly-business-honor/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:25:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: wfjag		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2014/04/strictly-business-honor/comment-page-1/#comment-279198</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[wfjag]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=45267#comment-279198</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[From the article, which gives new meaning to the term &quot;tax shelter&quot;:

&quot;In filing one’s taxes, it may be necessary to distinguish between breast implants that are merely &#039;large,&#039; and breast implants that are &#039;extraordinarily large.&#039;

The relevant ruling on this subject came in 1994 in a case known as Hess v. Commissioner. 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.

***

The courts ruled in her favor:

&#039;Because petitioner&#039;s implants were so extraordinarily large, we find that they were useful only in her business. Accordingly, we hold that the cost of petitioner&#039;s implant surgery is depreciable.&#039;&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the article, which gives new meaning to the term &#8220;tax shelter&#8221;:</p>
<p>&#8220;In filing one’s taxes, it may be necessary to distinguish between breast implants that are merely &#8216;large,&#8217; and breast implants that are &#8216;extraordinarily large.&#8217;</p>
<p>The relevant ruling on this subject came in 1994 in a case known as Hess v. Commissioner. 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>
<p>***</p>
<p>The courts ruled in her favor:</p>
<p>&#8216;Because petitioner&#8217;s implants were so extraordinarily large, we find that they were useful only in her business. Accordingly, we hold that the cost of petitioner&#8217;s implant surgery is depreciable.'&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
