EAs, Emmys, and…Enlargements
Josh and Shannon get into what actually separates a business deduction from a personal one.
Shannon reports back from the Brass Tax EA Bootcamp and the first year of at-home EA exam proctoring (the metal detector stories are real). Then: why an unlicensed preparer cannot represent you before the IRS no matter what the Facebook group says, how to tell whether a CE speaker actually knows the material, and a run through §162 versus §262 by way of an influencer who deducted the Grammys, a dancer who depreciated her chest, and two business partners who were very sure the Rolexes were ordinary and necessary.
Plus: why the adversarial posture toward the IRS is mostly bad strategy.
Sami v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-69 (Aug. 18, 2026) (Copeland, J.), Docket Nos. 8834-23, 16512-23
An IT manager whose LLC provided transportation services, event ticket sales, and social media influencing, who deducted roughly $97,000 in celebrity meet-and-greets, Grammys and Emmys tickets, and a signed pair of Kobe Bryant shoes — first as charitable contributions, then as marketing. Years at issue: 2019–21. The court applied Cohan to allow a portion of the car, toll, and phone expenses, allowed the credit card processing fees in full, disallowed the television, streaming, and general marketing expenses for lack of substantiation, and denied the celebrity expenses as primarily personal.
Hess v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 1994-79 (Mar. 30, 1994) (Pate, S.T.J.), Docket No. 11036-92S; 1994 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 88
The link goes to a scanned copy hosted by a law firm because that is the only full text on the open web. The opinion is not on CourtListener, and the Tax Court's DAWSON system does not reach back to 1994 summary opinions. Which is part of the point below: the most-repeated deduction case in the profession is one that almost nobody has actually read.
Cynthia Hess, stage name "Chesty Love," claimed $2,088 of depreciation on surgical implants that cost $5,368. The IRS did not disallow the money — it allowed the full $5,368 as a Schedule A medical expense and moved the deduction off Schedule C, which is why the entire deficiency was self-employment tax. The court held for the taxpayer. The reasoning ran through the costume cases: applying the three-part clothing test from Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767 (1958), it found the implants were required in her business, unsuitable for personal wear, and not so worn — she testified she would have removed them daily if that were physically possible — and concluded they were useful only in her business. The health and appearance damage is how the court distinguished the ordinary appearance cases, not the holding itself.
Total deficiency at issue: $699, all of it self-employment tax. Decision entered for petitioner.
Code sections: IRC §162 (trade or business expenses) · IRC §262 (personal, living, and family expenses) · IRC §7463(b) (small tax case decisions are not precedent) · IRC §67(h) (miscellaneous itemized deductions disallowed; formerly §67(g))
Chesty Love is not a T.C. Memo. It is T.C. Summary Opinion 1994-79 — a small tax case under §7463. A number of published tax articles cite it as "T.C. Memo. 1994-79" or "1994-22," which is wrong. And "T.C. Memo. 1994-79" is not a phantom cite — it is a real case, Carsendino v. Commissioner, which has nothing to do with any of this. The single most-repeated deduction story in the profession is a non-precedential summary opinion, and most of the people repeating it are citing someone else's case.
Including the firm hosting our copy. The only readable full text on the open web is a PDF on Wood LLP's site. In a separate Wood LLP article, the case is cited as "T.C. Op. 1994-79." Which is also not a thing.
But "not precedent" does not mean "not citable." §7463(b) says a small tax case decision shall not be reviewed in any other court and shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. It does not bar citing one, and the Tax Court's rules do not prohibit citing a summary opinion for whatever persuasive value it has. The distinction is between binding and persuasive, and it is worth getting right on a show about citations.
The size was 56FF, not 58 — in the year at issue. She was 56FF in 1988, which is the tax year in front of the court. In 1991 she received custom implants in an even larger size, 56N. So the people citing a different number are not always inventing it. They are citing the wrong year.
The Sami holding was mixed, not a clean denial. The celebrity meet-and-greet deductions went down, but the court allowed a portion of the vehicle, toll, and phone expenses under Cohan and allowed the credit card processing fees in full. Describing it as a wipeout overstates it.
And it is probably not "the first influencer case." Several outlets have described Sami as the first time the Tax Court applied business expense rules to an influencer. That may be right. It is the kind of superlative that gets corrected later, so we are hedging it now rather than in Episode 3.
The Dinah Shore gown story is not a case. There is no opinion, no docket, and no citation. Every published version hedges the same way — "the legend is," "rumor has it" — and the story defeats itself: if the examiner allowed the deduction, as the story goes, nothing was ever litigated. A near-identical version circulates about an unnamed Las Vegas showgirl who wore the costume to her audit, which is how folklore behaves. Also, Dinah Shore was a singer and television host with eighty charting hits, not a pinup, and she died in 1994.
Suleiman Sami is one person. Suleiman is the first name; the case is Sami.
- Brass Tax Presentations — EA Bootcamp — Parts 1 and 2 live, Part 3 on demand, and the on-demand version
- Tax Toolbox 2026 — Ryan Reichert and Shannon Hall, touring California September 21 through October 1, plus an on-demand option
- AskTomG — Disclosure: Josh has a financial interest in AskTomG.
- IRS Nationwide Tax Forums, San Diego — Josh will be there with Tom Gorczynski
- Tom Talks Taxes — Tom Gorczynski's newsletter for tax professionals
- CSTC — California Society of Tax Consultants
- CSEA — California Society of Enrolled Agents
- U.S. Tax Court — oral argument audio and live proceedings
This podcast is general commentary on federal tax law and procedure. It is not tax, legal, or accounting advice, and listening to it does not create a professional relationship with either host or with their firms. Tax outcomes depend on facts. Consult your own qualified advisor before acting on anything you hear here. Views expressed are the hosts' own and not those of any organization with which they are affiliated.