The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Feel free to discuss pricing and specific dealers. But 'for sale' postings, commercial solicitation and ads are not allowed. Full archive of all messages is accessible through options in the Search and Preferences features. Privacy, policies and administrivia are covered in the Terms of Use.
For the answer to the NUMBER #1 most frequently asked question here--for details or value of a specific older Omega watch you have--go to: Tell Me About My Omega. | Learn more about How To Include Photos and HTML In Your Postings. | To contact someone with a question not relevant to other readers of the forum, please click on their email address and contact them privately. |
Not sure if you are joking or serious here, but I would say you have zero chance of getting that through an audit because you are not required to get a Speedmaster specifically, and there are many watches that cost a whooole lot less that do the same job.
You do however have a shot of including it as a deduction for general "supplies" without a description. If your return goes unaudited you have a shot, but its risky, unethical, and tax evasive. In other words, im not giving you tax advice on this one.
Lets say hypothetically you did the above and were audited, you would not only have to justify that it was required for your work, but also that it was used exclusively for the work, which I tend to doubt.
According to the IRS, you would need to prove the following:
1)Its unreimbursed
2)Its directly connected with the services
3)Expenses you had only because of the services you gave
4)Not personal, living, or family expenses.
At any rate, the best you could hope for is that you would get the supply thing to work. Even then your deduction is only a reduction of the tax on your income, so lets say you are in the 20% bracket. A 2k watch will save you at most $400 in taxes, assuming no other deduction limitations. Not pocket change, but certainly not worth the risk of an audit or some sort of negligence penalty.
Hope this helps
Any U.S. tax advice contained in the body of this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. | CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE |