Runner made prior year $1000, I figured it was a prize, not subject to
This year, runner won 4 prizes, totalling about $20,000 (several
states). It's starting to smell like S/E tax time for sure. Are my
This is a matter of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether
the individual runs as a hobby for fun or exercise or runs because it is
the way he earns a living or is trying to earn a living. If the latter,
Schedule C. If the former, Line 21 and Schedule A.
Obviously I don't have all the facts. It certainly is possible for an
individual to travel to different states to run in an event and still
have a hobby, especially if he had a regular job or business or trade
that was providing the income he needed for his livelihood.
You're going to have to dig deeper.
Also, if it's Schedule C then the deductions (like shoes, etc) would
be allowed in full on Schedule C. Technically shoes are assets that
must be depreciated. If it's a hobby, deductions are allowed on
Schedule A subject to the 2% of AGI limit (only the amount above 2% of
your AGI is deductible), and the deduction is not allowed under AMT.
But as running is a very common hobby, maybe the deduction for shoes
are likely not allowed at all.
Not to pile on, but I wouldn't think a serious runner's shoes would last
longer than a year anyway, so neither would they be depreciable.
As for street wear, back in high school I ran cross-country and track,
we had running shoes with screw-in spikes that definitely were not
suitable for streetwear. Not sure what prize-winning runners use these
days. I suppose street races would require ordinary non-spike shoes.
I disagree with "are able to be worn for ordinary street wear". By
this reasoning, no costumes for a acting company would be deductible
because it is conceivable to wear these items in street wear. People
wore bizarre clothes a hundred years ago, and it worked, so they could
do so today, therefore no costumes would be deductible. So I think
that the criterion should be if "is worn for ordinary street wear then
not deductible". I understand this is a gray line because ordinary
running shoes are so ordinary.
As for what shoes runners these days actually wear, I believe it's the
same as what regular people wear. No spikes.
Shoes would be a depreciable asset only if they have an expected use
lifetime greater than a year. Considering "practice" time, I have a hard
time believing that they would last that long. I also have a hard time
believing that such doesn't constitute "general exercise" which isn't
deductible under the medical rules either, and as for the business rules, I
don't see the shoes as being a "costume" i.e. not "street-wearable."
I see no deductions here, other than perhaps entry fees for the races (and
even that may be pushing it).
In article ,
How about (with the push you talked above) things like travel, lodging,
and food, assuming that you were good enough to place high enough to get
some actual cash which, at least using the local mini-marathon as a
guide, probably wouldn't impact much on US taxes since you are most
likely Kenyan (grin)
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
In Stemkowski, 82 T.C. 854 (1984) the tax court implies that shoes
for professional athletes are deductible expenses if the expense is
properly documented. In that case the documentation was
In article ,
We may have to just disagree. In your scenario, if the clothes
are indeed bizarre, I would contend they are not suitable for
ordinary street wear.
>that the criterion should be if "is worn for ordinary street wear then
>not deductible". I understand this is a gray line because ordinary
>running shoes are so ordinary.
>As for what shoes runners these days actually wear, I believe it's the
>same as what regular people wear. No spikes.
On Mar 26, 5:20 pm, "Stuart A. Bronstein"
Sure, you can depreciate it over one year, or expense it.
What about travel to get the the race site, hotel stay, meals?
Is this the case you talk about?
In this case they also say that off-season conditioning is also
deductible if properly documented (bullet 24). So they were very
generous. Even specialized newspapers are allowed if properly
documented, and they cite a case where Wall Street Journal deduction
was allowed but Time magazine was not. It sounds outrageous to me
that the court should get to decide what is ordinary and necessary,
but in this thread it's conceivable that shoes are deductible if the
runner is truly a professional.