Talk:Itemized deduction

Untitled

The gambling deductions doesn't make sense. Consider adding more detail or revising?

beard touching contributions

I reverted a contribution that said "beard touching contributions" were deductible. I made this reversion because I thought it was vandalism. Someone reverted by previous reversion, but without explanation as to whether "beard touching contributions" were anything other than nonsense. Perhaps those who made the contributions may explain otherwise I will revert or delete that text.EECavazos (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous itemized deductions

The section on miscellaneous itemized deductions is highly misleading. The listed items are indeed deductions subject to 2% of AGI. The only instance where they may be "above the line" deductions is if they are related to the taxpayer's trade or business - schedule C, E or F. Mike20878 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Itemized deduction/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Class==

Start class because contains a lot of material that goes in depth. However, it lacks citations and needs clean up. Further, it lacks a history section and other sections to give context to the topic of the article.EECavazos 19:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Priority==

Low priority because the article contains a topic that doesn't have huge importance in the same way that an overall tax scheme of a country does likewise compared to the overall idea of deductions in general. However, it could go up to mid priority because itemized deductions may very well be a sought after article with many people using wikipedia to learn about it.EECavazos 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)