- 11 -
are not considered necessary. Deputy v. du Pont, supra; Noland
v. Commissioner, 269 F.2d 108, 109 (4th Cir. 1959); Westerman v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 478, 482 (1970); Stolk v. Commissioner, 40
T.C. 345, 357 (1963), affd. 326 F.2d 760 (2d Cir. 1964); Jergens
v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 806, 811 (1951); Harding v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1970-179. Merely because an employer is
financially unable to reimburse an employee for expenses paid by
the employee on the employer's behalf does not necessarily
entitle the employee to a deduction. Thomas v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1988-505.
On the other hand, if, as a condition of employment, an
employee is required to incur expenses on behalf of his or her
employer, the employee is entitled to a deduction for those
expenses that are ordinary and necessary to his or her business
as an employee to the extent such expenses are not subject to
reimbursement. Schmidlapp v. Commissioner, 96 F.2d 680 (2d Cir.
1938); Eder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-408.
Respondent argues that the expenses do not constitute
ordinary and necessary employee business expenses within the
meaning of section 162(a) because petitioner, as a corporate
officer and employee of Stone Jessup, incurred the expenses
voluntarily and not because Stone Jessup required him to do so as
a condition of his employment. We do not agree.
As the only director and officer of Stone Jessup, it would
have been petitioner who would have established the conditions of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011