Samuel C. Stone and Susan C. Stone - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          his own employment.  We find that as an officer and director of             
          Stone Jessup petitioner established the requisite corporate                 
          policy that would allow him, as an employee of the corporation,             
          to deduct any unreimbursed employee business expenses he incurred           
          in connection with his employment.  See Theodore Souris, P.C. v.            
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-450.  We therefore find that as a             
          condition of petitioner's employment with Stone Jessup he was               
          required personally to pay expenses that he incurred in                     
          connection with such employment.  We further find that petitioner           
          was only entitled to reimbursement from Stone Jessup for such               
          expenses if Stone Jessup was financially able to do so, which               
          during the year in issue, was not the case.  Accordingly, we hold           
          that petitioners are entitled to a deduction for the employee               
          business expenses specifically listed above in this section of              
          the opinion.                                                                
          Credit Life Insurance Premiums                                              
               Pursuant to the previously discussed line of credit with the           
          bank, petitioner obtained several credit life insurance policies,           
          each naming the bank as beneficiary, and paid $1,142.88 in                  
          premiums.  The manner in which petitioners deducted the expenses            
          for the premiums on their 1991 return, partly on a Form 2106 and            
          partly as a miscellaneous itemized deduction, leads us to                   
          conclude that they rely upon section 162(a), section 212(2), or             
          both, in support of the deductions.  However, we need not                   
          consider whether the deductions should be allowed under either of           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011