- 16 -
petitioner was able to gain more from her travel experience. In
light of the classes petitioner taught, her role in developing
curriculum for the English department, the racial and cultural
background of many of her students, and petitioner's
incorporation of tangible knowledge and skills learned in the
U.C. Extension courses into the classes she teaches, we find the
courses had a direct and proximate relationship in maintaining
and improving petitioner's skills as a high school English
teacher and as chair of the English department.
In addition to proving that the U.C. Extension courses
maintained or improved her teaching skills, petitioners must
prove that such expenses were "ordinary and necessary" within the
meaning of section 162(a). See Boser v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. at
1132; Ford v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1300, 1305-1307 (1971), affd.
per curiam 487 F.2d 1025 (9th Cir. 1973); Stricker v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-530; McCulloch v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1988-84; Raines v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-125;
sec. 1.262-1(b)(9), Income Tax Regs.
"Ordinary" has been defined in the context of section 162(a)
as that which is "normal, usual, or customary" in the taxpayer's
trade or business. Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 495 (1940).
The activity which gives rise to the expense must not be one that
is rare in the taxpayer's business. See Welch v. Helvering, 290
U.S. at 114; Stricker v. Commissioner, supra. An activity that
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011