For those Tax Profs who love teaching the clothing expense deduction issue through the Pevsner v. Commissioner, 628 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1980), case:  Joe Kristan has a wonderful discussion of a potentially worthy successor decided by the Tax Court last week:  Deihl v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-287.  Joe recounts this testimony: 

• Q: And describe for the Court your method of operation with respect to wardrobe or costume for those in your company participating at the conventions?
• A: Well, if you’re going to give the appearance of affluence you have to be capable of looking the part. And obviously wearing a different suit between the morning session and the evening session has bearing on it. More so with the women. As I said earlier, we worked the tables, both my sons and their wives and my wife. We would visit all 5,000 people. We would talk to all five, shake hands with them, turn around and they would have met all three of the families during that last night at that last time. So it would be imperative that the gowns worn by the girls especially could not be the same ones that they had on at an earlier function because they were always a constant reference at the tables by the distributors saying "What a beautiful gown." "Isn’t that gorgeous." It was obviously over the top type dress. I mean you couldn’t wear it to the grocery store or the gym or anything but it was done on purpose so that all the children and everybody else had matching outfits on and it just generated the enthusiasm backwards from them that they wanted to be and participate.
• Q: The wardrobe we’re talking about that was paid for by the companies?
• A: Yes.
• Q: And what was the policy as to whether the women could wear the dress more than once?
• A: No. The dress, once the dress had been seen it could not be seen again.
• Q: And then what happened to the dress?
• A: They all went to charity or were just given away to third parties.
• Q: And what rule, if any, with respect to the men?
• A: The men was a little bit easier because most of the time they would just have to have tuxedos. Our requirement on the men was that they just couldn’t — you can’t just walk into and buy a tuxedo at Men’s Wearhouse and expect somebody to say, "Gee, that’s a great looking piece of garment." It’s how it’s tailored and how it fits that has more intensity to it.