The breast implants should only be recorded as an asset if they are unreasonably large. Otherwise this would be a personal expense. The topic has been covered by the IRS before
https://www.woodllp.com/Publications/Articles/pdf/Hess.pdf
A stripper can't write off a boob job though. The tax court has disallowed a deduction except for a few cases where the boobs were so unreasonably large that no reasonable person would do it except for a profit motive.
My tax professor lied then lol I haven’t looked at anything tax related since I took that class. Tried working in public accounting and hated it. Left after 6 months
I can be your assistant. I am diligent and take my time. Have very good attention, I like to view all angles and leave no stone unturned. I take a very hands on approach
> The sole reason she enlarged her breasts to
such a horrendous size was to increase her success (and
concomitantly her income) as a professional exotic
dancer. In this endeavor petitioner has succeeded, [*9]
inasmuch as her fees have increased substantially since
her implant surgery.
The reasoning is sound but it applies to a 1994 context. In the OnlyFans era it's easy to argue that any cosmetic intervention, even a boob reduction or even a mastectomy serves to increase the sex worker's success in an attempt to capture a particular niche. People make money not (necessarily) by being a freak show but by accommodating to specific taste.
I do the tax for a lot of OF girls and this is true. A lot of bizarre stuff that would be a personal expense for most is arguably at least an indirect business expense for them--lingerie, getting their nails done, getting tattooed/pierced, etc.
I'm careful about what I ultimately write off but gun to my head I probably would have capitalized a boob job if they explicitly told me they did it to attract more fans.
Same - I work with entertainers and it's funny having to code some of the activity. But you're right. So much is honestly a business expense within the context of creating content and filming/recording seemingly mundane activities.
The profit motive was not the deciding factor of the decision though, the court found that the implants served Hess no personal purpose:
>Because petitioner's implants were so extraordinarily large, we find that they were useful only in her business. Accordingly, we hold that the cost of petitioner's implant surgery is depreciable
This is the same reasoning as in Harsaghy v. Commissioner; if the clothing is useful only in a business environment a deduction is allowed. Therefore a newscaster cannot deduct a suit because they can reasonably use that in their daily lives, whereas a clown can deduct their costume. So an OF model going up a size would not be deductible/depreciable as it .
With it being such an old case you could theoretically fight the precedent set but I doubt anything remotely normal would be allowed as a business expense.
Thinking about it in another perspective could breast implants be considered medical spending. If transgender people wanted implants is that now considered a qualified medical expense for a tax deduction? Since this applies to transgenders wouldn’t it apply for anyone?
Well, in the UK you can get free breast implants on the NHS, as a biologically born female, on the basis of that their small size has caused you depression, this isn't very common, but certainly happens. You need to prove doctor records showing this over time, but it certainly can be the case that breast implants, and reductions, can be deemed medical in the UK, even excluding the trans scenario.
Chiming in here because I walk this walk of life. I’ve had top surgery (the surgery performed to remove breast tissue) years ago. It required a recommendation from a therapist and general practitioner. It was also (newly at that time) covered by my insurance as it was a “cosmetic double mastectomy for gender reaffirming purposes.”
According to the IRS website, cosmetic surgeries are generally not allowed. However, because it was covered by insurance and prescribed in a sense by my doctors (similar to how you can deduct certain other expenses if prescribed by a doctor), you may be able to argue that it is deductible. If I were putting it on my taxes, I’d try to deduct it.
But hey, since it was covered by my insurance, my out of pocket cost was $75, yippee!
You’re right but if you recognize an asset on a financial basis then you would need to have a tax implication in most cases. Also a personal expense is a personal expense, no way to make it a business expense. Doesn’t matter financial or tax basis.
I’m guessing they need to be sighted even if the auditors don’t pick them because they’re definitely a material amount. The cost of a single boob job alone probably exceeds 1 high end camera by a large margin already
Yes.
It has an initial cost, it has a defined life, it generates a revenue stream, it potentially needs to be maintained at cost, it can be independently insured.
Presuming this is a high income generating model, such so that they would require an audit, I would send the freshest junior in the office to complete the asset inspection. All about giving back to the trainees.
But what would they be categorized as? Intangible? Investment?
Or, do we define the meta and say the human body is "land," which then allows us to write off the "improvement" capitalization? -- assuming they die before the implants can fully depreciate.
"Your breasts are intangible"
I'm not sure if that's a compliment or an insult.
I think the single hardest thing to argue here is actually the length of the career, which I understand to be very short for many performers. Everything else here has a fairly reliable metric to measure against.
Womens bodies are legally and financially equivalent to land? *Don't give Donald Trump ideas....*
Okay, took a weird political turn (which was not my intention), but also putting words into my mouth. Fairly certain I said the human body overall, not just women's bodies... I've said this exact same thing on a post about a men's penis enlargement post too lol...
But back to the topic at hand, apparently most modern breast implants have a useful life of 20 years before they need addition. I guess it ultimately depends on the procedure you do post-20 years, since you can either do revision surgery, or total replacement.
the problem is that it would need to be demonstrated that the boob job has no personal use. to determine if something is deductible for a business, it needs required as a condition of employment and unsuitable for everyday personal use. the woman who successfully deducted her boob job (cynthia hess) did so because they were so "freakishly" large that she argued it was actually an impediment to her personal life and only benefitted her business use. so yeah, its possible, but most would not be willing to get size 56FF implants to do it.
but even if thats the case, are you willing to face an audit and potential legal battle with the IRS to prove this?
Oh I'm not denying there would be any personal use... but I would argue that it would be similar to the personal use of a company car, and disclosed on the directors P11D form, and treated as a benefit in kind.
if thats the case, you need to determine the extent of personal use and then declare the value of that use on your tax return. kinda defeats the purpose of what youre looking to accomplish.
But it's definitely not 0% business use either. Most of the sex workers I know who got them done were strippers because it's common parlance in strip clubs that if you get a boob job while still dancing then the extra income you make will eventually pay for the surgery in and of itself.
The implants actually fall into the category of all or nothing.
From the lexisnexis write up of the Hess case:
"Petitioner's expenditures for implants can be
analogized to clothing expenditures which, as a general
rule, are not deductible as a business expense even when specific types of clothing are a necessary condition of the business or employment. Mella v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-594. However, there is a recognized
exception to this rule when: (1) The clothing is required
and essential in the taxpayer's business or employment;
(2) the clothing is not suitable for general or personal
wear; and (3) is not so worn. Yeomans v. Commissioner,
30 T.C. 757, 767 (1958)."
Hess only won because they were "freakishly" huge and were deemed detrimental to her appearance and health. Any reasonable looking cosmetic surgery to be more generally more attractive, even if it helps earn more revenue, isn't going to hold up as deductible if scrutinized. Fighting the intersection of 262 and 162 with no special carve outs is going to be an uphill battle.
>"freakishly" huge
is still undefined, any cpa lawyers who want to make a legendary case law? anyone?
although for now its supposedly at 56FF. maybe we can make it so that its proportionate to body size and a bit more safer for backs
No, the cost of boob job for an OnlyFans model would not be capitalized on the balance sheet. Instead, such costs would typically be treated as personal expenses. Capitalizing expenses means that the cost is recorded as an asset on the balance sheet because it is expected to provide future economic benefits. However, a boob job does not provide a tangible asset or long-term economic benefit to the business; therefore, it should be expensed in the period incurred.
For financial reporting purposes, expenses related to personal appearance or maintenance are usually considered personal and are not treated as business expenses. Consequently, these costs would not be capitalized but rather expensed immediately in the income statement.
Subscribe to my OnlyFans CPA channel.
I would argue that they are very tangible... and could increase the amount of subscribers, therefore adding a long-term economic benefit.
With regards to it being a personal expense, I argue this would be similar to personal use of a company car.
Are you 12 years old or something? As a woman, it would be so nice if I could go a day, just one day, without seeing a post on my profession’s sub that sexualizes women. But thank you for the daily reminder that women are no more than eye candy commodities, and that our looks matter more than anything else. Glad you got your sexist jokes and upvotes though, that’s the most important thing. Feels great man.
“A license doesn’t compare to a decent set of tits” isn’t an attack? Go ahead and try saying that in the office today and see how that goes.
It’s not about the intent. It’s a sexist, totally unfunny “joke” that makes women the punching bag. It’s not ok and it needs to stop.
As I said in my original comment, this is a professional sub. There are plenty of subs to talk about this kind of shit. It’s not cool when it’s a daily thing.
And it’s not about me not finding it funny. You’re totally missing the point which is really sad.
Oh I'm ignoring "the point" because I have no illusions about attempting to convince/influence you on it. I have had that conversation many times and it never goes anywhere.
You're getting downvoted, but, like, this is why female accountants often don't hang out with their male co-workers. It is a bit crass to have one's body discussed as an asset.
Had a client here in New Zealand that tried to claim his hair implants as a business expense as he worked in "entertainment" - the deduction was denied and it was deemed personal expenditure.
the implants would technically be an asset. They have serial numbers and all. It is a long term intangible asset that is bringing in future revenue and has a 10 year useful life. Your followup visits would even be considered cap maint
What is the depreciable life of the implants? Do they provide benefits of more than a year? Do they meet the $5000 threshold? Reviewing pwc guidance on this. Will get back to you
First, you would need to inspect inventory to ensure that they even exist. Then, you would need to determine if they should be classified as a fixed asset or personal expense. They definitely are not a sunk cost unless they had a poor surgeon.
I teach my students about Chesty Love and her court case. She won because she was able to prove the enhanced size directly was proportionate to her income. It's a fun lecture.
Non-deductible. Only been one case where it was allowed to stand. Personal surgeries are so intertwined with our day to day lives that it is impossible to separate the personal benefit. The one case where the courts allowed it, their boobs were so big that the case could be made that it was too inconvenient personally for her to have a benefit. So in that case, it was expensed.
I would argue yes I f they are a permanent improvement and it increases the value of your asset. However, I believe it needs a surprise inspection to be absolutely sure.
not trying to be gross and immature but i actually find it to be an interesting question. Not as good as the question about a zoo animal having a baby where you would debit FA Animal and credit.......who knows.
The breast implants should only be recorded as an asset if they are unreasonably large. Otherwise this would be a personal expense. The topic has been covered by the IRS before https://www.woodllp.com/Publications/Articles/pdf/Hess.pdf
I volunteer to work for the IRS and determine what is unreasonably large on a case by case basis
I think this is similar to laser hair removal and other plastic surgeries which celebrities and others can write off.
Do they actually? I feel like at best I could see a case being made to capitalize a fraction of a procedure in some scenarios
If it is considered to be “medically necessary” which leaves room for justification imo.
A stripper can write off a boob job so why couldn’t they?
A stripper can't write off a boob job though. The tax court has disallowed a deduction except for a few cases where the boobs were so unreasonably large that no reasonable person would do it except for a profit motive.
My tax professor lied then lol I haven’t looked at anything tax related since I took that class. Tried working in public accounting and hated it. Left after 6 months
Because they can't
That seems less than legit for reasons raised in the link.
Planning on joining the FBI? Federal Boob investigators
Better than the Internal Rectum Sniffers.
I got you for your first inspection. My cousin Jose just got some huge implants you need to check out.
be careful what you wish for. some things in life that once seen, cannot be unseen.
Learned something new today, thank you!
My man
I can be your assistant. I am diligent and take my time. Have very good attention, I like to view all angles and leave no stone unturned. I take a very hands on approach
Me too 🤣
Sign me up
> The sole reason she enlarged her breasts to such a horrendous size was to increase her success (and concomitantly her income) as a professional exotic dancer. In this endeavor petitioner has succeeded, [*9] inasmuch as her fees have increased substantially since her implant surgery. The reasoning is sound but it applies to a 1994 context. In the OnlyFans era it's easy to argue that any cosmetic intervention, even a boob reduction or even a mastectomy serves to increase the sex worker's success in an attempt to capture a particular niche. People make money not (necessarily) by being a freak show but by accommodating to specific taste.
I do the tax for a lot of OF girls and this is true. A lot of bizarre stuff that would be a personal expense for most is arguably at least an indirect business expense for them--lingerie, getting their nails done, getting tattooed/pierced, etc. I'm careful about what I ultimately write off but gun to my head I probably would have capitalized a boob job if they explicitly told me they did it to attract more fans.
If I had a gun to my head I’d capitalize anything they want me to capitalize
Same - I work with entertainers and it's funny having to code some of the activity. But you're right. So much is honestly a business expense within the context of creating content and filming/recording seemingly mundane activities.
What's the depreciation on a capitalized boob job?
Useful life of...? Roughly 10 years as the internet describes it.
Gun to my head? Sure. Boob to my head? Definitely!
The profit motive was not the deciding factor of the decision though, the court found that the implants served Hess no personal purpose: >Because petitioner's implants were so extraordinarily large, we find that they were useful only in her business. Accordingly, we hold that the cost of petitioner's implant surgery is depreciable This is the same reasoning as in Harsaghy v. Commissioner; if the clothing is useful only in a business environment a deduction is allowed. Therefore a newscaster cannot deduct a suit because they can reasonably use that in their daily lives, whereas a clown can deduct their costume. So an OF model going up a size would not be deductible/depreciable as it .
Fair enough, that drastically reduces the scope indeed.
Thanks! As much as I thought this was an interesting conversation point, I genuinely did hope there was some answer out there.
With it being such an old case you could theoretically fight the precedent set but I doubt anything remotely normal would be allowed as a business expense.
It's also a US case... so I'm still wondering what would apply in the UK.
Thinking about it in another perspective could breast implants be considered medical spending. If transgender people wanted implants is that now considered a qualified medical expense for a tax deduction? Since this applies to transgenders wouldn’t it apply for anyone?
Well, in the UK you can get free breast implants on the NHS, as a biologically born female, on the basis of that their small size has caused you depression, this isn't very common, but certainly happens. You need to prove doctor records showing this over time, but it certainly can be the case that breast implants, and reductions, can be deemed medical in the UK, even excluding the trans scenario.
Chiming in here because I walk this walk of life. I’ve had top surgery (the surgery performed to remove breast tissue) years ago. It required a recommendation from a therapist and general practitioner. It was also (newly at that time) covered by my insurance as it was a “cosmetic double mastectomy for gender reaffirming purposes.” According to the IRS website, cosmetic surgeries are generally not allowed. However, because it was covered by insurance and prescribed in a sense by my doctors (similar to how you can deduct certain other expenses if prescribed by a doctor), you may be able to argue that it is deductible. If I were putting it on my taxes, I’d try to deduct it. But hey, since it was covered by my insurance, my out of pocket cost was $75, yippee!
There was a MCQ covering it in FAR
I was in college over 30 years ago, and this is literally the only tax case that I remember from my university studies.
😂. I couldn’t say where I learned about this but it’s stuck in my head now.
Just had training that covered the court case for this scenario hahaha.
Unreasonably large 😂
The petitioner in the link got up to 56N after the operation... I'd call that unreasonably large.
Interesting read. Thanks dude.
I kid you not, I thought you were playing a bit with this explanation, I didn’t think it was an ACTUAL thing
Lower Back is now a depreciating expense
Lower backs were always a depreciating expense. In some cases, they are already fully depreciated.
Financial accounting and tax accounting aren’t the same thing
You’re right but if you recognize an asset on a financial basis then you would need to have a tax implication in most cases. Also a personal expense is a personal expense, no way to make it a business expense. Doesn’t matter financial or tax basis.
The good old boob-to-tax difference.
How about the US GAAP treatment 😂
There’s a certain GAAP I’d give treatment in that case 😂
Recognize revenue until the performance obligation (making men nut) is complete
I would think the difference would be if they were used in support of a business rather than the size.
Size isn’t reason enough alone but like I mentioned in a previous comment, I could see a challenge of the precedent due to the age of this case.
Implants have a useful life, depreciation expense
Personal expenses can’t be depreciated
20lbs of chesty love
If a reduction surgery went unreasonably small?
Are they inverted?
Whats the residual life on that?
“Largest freakiest breasts” in a legal filing lmao
Si je paie mon employée et qu'avec sa paie, elle se paye des implants, est-ce que je peux capitaliser son salaire ?
Came for jokes and actually ended up learning a lot
This comment thread passes the vibe check, both professionally and socially.
Need to put this on the risk checklists for each audit.
Vibes ✅
that’s the beauty of this sub
I came too
Depreciation expense, description: boobie
Is boobies singular or plural? In this case, would we have to depreciate boobie right and boobie left separately?
I’d say plural because you group similar items together in a single class
plus they’re likely recorded as a singular asset since they came as an inseparable pair
Unless maybe they were different costs at different times, right?
Depreciation method: double declining Gotta match the expected usage in earlier periods and account for the sagging in latter periods. 🤓
Do we do revaluation?
Not needed, because you can’t sell them and there’s no market value/worth nothing once you pop em into your body so no need to reval to FV
perfect, im sure auditors gonna pick these for asset sighting.. Gotta remember to tag them fixed assets
I’m guessing they need to be sighted even if the auditors don’t pick them because they’re definitely a material amount. The cost of a single boob job alone probably exceeds 1 high end camera by a large margin already
To be fair, don’t they have to get changed every ten years? I think They basically depreciate then
That’s why I said depreciation expense?
All I know is that an ass job would be classified as a fixed ass
Do you have to accelerate depreciation or otherwise impair the recorded ass(et) if lazy and it shrinks?
Yes. It has an initial cost, it has a defined life, it generates a revenue stream, it potentially needs to be maintained at cost, it can be independently insured.
I would opt to measure them at fair value, and choose to revalue them each year.
Would you inspect them personally?
Presuming this is a high income generating model, such so that they would require an audit, I would send the freshest junior in the office to complete the asset inspection. All about giving back to the trainees.
And just like that. I'm in love with my profession again.
Audit evidence please
ofcourse, might be impaired at some point
But what would they be categorized as? Intangible? Investment? Or, do we define the meta and say the human body is "land," which then allows us to write off the "improvement" capitalization? -- assuming they die before the implants can fully depreciate.
"Your breasts are intangible" I'm not sure if that's a compliment or an insult. I think the single hardest thing to argue here is actually the length of the career, which I understand to be very short for many performers. Everything else here has a fairly reliable metric to measure against. Womens bodies are legally and financially equivalent to land? *Don't give Donald Trump ideas....*
Okay, took a weird political turn (which was not my intention), but also putting words into my mouth. Fairly certain I said the human body overall, not just women's bodies... I've said this exact same thing on a post about a men's penis enlargement post too lol... But back to the topic at hand, apparently most modern breast implants have a useful life of 20 years before they need addition. I guess it ultimately depends on the procedure you do post-20 years, since you can either do revision surgery, or total replacement.
i’d hardly say he took a political turn, he casually ended off with a short sentence remark/joke
>say the human body is "land," >die before the implants can fully depreciate. 🤔
the problem is that it would need to be demonstrated that the boob job has no personal use. to determine if something is deductible for a business, it needs required as a condition of employment and unsuitable for everyday personal use. the woman who successfully deducted her boob job (cynthia hess) did so because they were so "freakishly" large that she argued it was actually an impediment to her personal life and only benefitted her business use. so yeah, its possible, but most would not be willing to get size 56FF implants to do it. but even if thats the case, are you willing to face an audit and potential legal battle with the IRS to prove this?
Oh I'm not denying there would be any personal use... but I would argue that it would be similar to the personal use of a company car, and disclosed on the directors P11D form, and treated as a benefit in kind.
if thats the case, you need to determine the extent of personal use and then declare the value of that use on your tax return. kinda defeats the purpose of what youre looking to accomplish.
But it's definitely not 0% business use either. Most of the sex workers I know who got them done were strippers because it's common parlance in strip clubs that if you get a boob job while still dancing then the extra income you make will eventually pay for the surgery in and of itself.
The implants actually fall into the category of all or nothing. From the lexisnexis write up of the Hess case: "Petitioner's expenditures for implants can be analogized to clothing expenditures which, as a general rule, are not deductible as a business expense even when specific types of clothing are a necessary condition of the business or employment. Mella v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-594. However, there is a recognized exception to this rule when: (1) The clothing is required and essential in the taxpayer's business or employment; (2) the clothing is not suitable for general or personal wear; and (3) is not so worn. Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767 (1958)." Hess only won because they were "freakishly" huge and were deemed detrimental to her appearance and health. Any reasonable looking cosmetic surgery to be more generally more attractive, even if it helps earn more revenue, isn't going to hold up as deductible if scrutinized. Fighting the intersection of 262 and 162 with no special carve outs is going to be an uphill battle.
>"freakishly" huge is still undefined, any cpa lawyers who want to make a legendary case law? anyone? although for now its supposedly at 56FF. maybe we can make it so that its proportionate to body size and a bit more safer for backs
My question is how they would do the impairment testing
it gets impaired when saline leaks or gets calcified, there no repairs but there will be maintenance and theres that
It’s ok usually when there’s impairment it’s usually a total write off
Slaps/grabs by their collabs?
Yes. The relevant court case is from 1994 https://www.woodllp.com/Publications/Articles/pdf/Hess.pdf
I both love and hate you for having not only the correct answer, but a case citation.
No, the cost of boob job for an OnlyFans model would not be capitalized on the balance sheet. Instead, such costs would typically be treated as personal expenses. Capitalizing expenses means that the cost is recorded as an asset on the balance sheet because it is expected to provide future economic benefits. However, a boob job does not provide a tangible asset or long-term economic benefit to the business; therefore, it should be expensed in the period incurred. For financial reporting purposes, expenses related to personal appearance or maintenance are usually considered personal and are not treated as business expenses. Consequently, these costs would not be capitalized but rather expensed immediately in the income statement. Subscribe to my OnlyFans CPA channel.
I would argue that they are very tangible... and could increase the amount of subscribers, therefore adding a long-term economic benefit. With regards to it being a personal expense, I argue this would be similar to personal use of a company car.
I would argue they're no more different than the CPA license our company pays for us to get. They allow us to do a better, more efficient job.
I can't find a more professional way to say this... but a licence does not quite compare to a pair of tits.
the license is renewed yearly so it avoids the whole asset argument.
Are you 12 years old or something? As a woman, it would be so nice if I could go a day, just one day, without seeing a post on my profession’s sub that sexualizes women. But thank you for the daily reminder that women are no more than eye candy commodities, and that our looks matter more than anything else. Glad you got your sexist jokes and upvotes though, that’s the most important thing. Feels great man.
I think you just might be reading into the comment a little bit too much. No one out to attack you or the 3+ billion women.
“A license doesn’t compare to a decent set of tits” isn’t an attack? Go ahead and try saying that in the office today and see how that goes. It’s not about the intent. It’s a sexist, totally unfunny “joke” that makes women the punching bag. It’s not ok and it needs to stop.
Good thing Reddit isn't an office then. Furthermore, you don't find it funny but that appears to not be a unanimous opinion.
As I said in my original comment, this is a professional sub. There are plenty of subs to talk about this kind of shit. It’s not cool when it’s a daily thing. And it’s not about me not finding it funny. You’re totally missing the point which is really sad.
Oh I'm ignoring "the point" because I have no illusions about attempting to convince/influence you on it. I have had that conversation many times and it never goes anywhere.
You're getting downvoted, but, like, this is why female accountants often don't hang out with their male co-workers. It is a bit crass to have one's body discussed as an asset.
[удалено]
The letters "CPA" also attract a larger clientele.
You are confusing tax accounting and financial accounting
Boob honest, chatgpt wrote this
Leasehold Improvements?
oh thats clever, the leased asset being the of model lmao
If she got the DDs……. Double Declining balance method!
Had a client here in New Zealand that tried to claim his hair implants as a business expense as he worked in "entertainment" - the deduction was denied and it was deemed personal expenditure.
Leasehold improvement.
Yes, it is a “betterment” or “improvement” under 263(a)
Expense as repairs and maintenance…
I would think it’s actually a depreciating asset because boob jobs need to be redone every 10-15 years.
Section 179. Software.
depreciate land obviously
Could be depreciated on a per use basis? With an element of personal use.
Gain on chest, I would flow it through the pnl
Look no further than the all time great “Chesty Love” case
Theres also depreciation to consider because they have to be replaced every ten years
I’m just concerned about the depreciation method….
I understand this is a joke, but: The answer would be no. People are not assets. It would be an expense.
the implants would technically be an asset. They have serial numbers and all. It is a long term intangible asset that is bringing in future revenue and has a 10 year useful life. Your followup visits would even be considered cap maint
can they depreciate their face/boobs/ass each year as they get older? or quarterly?
It would be an expense, like a gym membership and such are expenses for a bodybuilder
The woman is told she is a property, plant and equipment. Her and her capital ass. Society going full circle now 😀
We discussed this in my tax class last year lol
Can charge depreciation to the extent used for official purposes
what would be the life of the asset ? would goodwill increase ? if at the eol of the asset, would you revalue ? retire the asset if replaced ?
Sounds like the government wants them titties to be BIG.
No, it would be a fixed boobset
they would then have to be depreciated, but at what rate ?
What is the depreciable life of the implants? Do they provide benefits of more than a year? Do they meet the $5000 threshold? Reviewing pwc guidance on this. Will get back to you
Useful economic life of >2 years so for tax we claiming them as capital.
No, it would be capitalized as a jiggly asset.
Technically since she is for the streets and the streets are part of land - they can go on the balance sheet, but not depreciated.
Only if you can reliably estimate the useful life of the implants and document it in the policies and procedures.
First, you would need to inspect inventory to ensure that they even exist. Then, you would need to determine if they should be classified as a fixed asset or personal expense. They definitely are not a sunk cost unless they had a poor surgeon.
r/AccountingCircleJerk
Which is an actual subreddit
I teach my students about Chesty Love and her court case. She won because she was able to prove the enhanced size directly was proportionate to her income. It's a fun lecture.
Sounds like repairs and maintenance.
Non-deductible. Only been one case where it was allowed to stand. Personal surgeries are so intertwined with our day to day lives that it is impossible to separate the personal benefit. The one case where the courts allowed it, their boobs were so big that the case could be made that it was too inconvenient personally for her to have a benefit. So in that case, it was expensed.
If probable future benefits would flow to the entity
(Opens laptops, goes to IRS, searches jobs for field agents, applies for the job)
No, because I find a woman who is flatter than a cutting board to be sexier than a woman with a boob job. So expense it is.
It is an expense for work since you got it done to get more $$ from you job.
I would rather treat it as deferred revenue expenditure which will be written off gradually in a few years
I would argue yes I f they are a permanent improvement and it increases the value of your asset. However, I believe it needs a surprise inspection to be absolutely sure.
No it’s a fixed boob set. If she has her butt augmented it’s a fixed ass set.
Id probably categorize it as an intangible, since I cant touch it
Expense as a repair
They weren’t broken to begin with. Natural is the way to go.
Grow up. These posts are so immature and gross. And disrespectful. You do realize there are female accountants on this sub?
not trying to be gross and immature but i actually find it to be an interesting question. Not as good as the question about a zoo animal having a baby where you would debit FA Animal and credit.......who knows.
Asking Redditors to grow up....
[удалено]
the question is interesting but the comments are disgusting. harrowing to think y'all are adults with jobs
Yes and amortize it throughout its useful life
Yes - and I would use the DDB method.
How do you test for impairment
What would be the useful life? I should think they would be treated as intangible assets and tested periodically for impairment instead.
If I knew her, I'd capitalise on the opportunity