Wayne Robert and Patricia A. Rogers - Page 7




                                        - 6 -                                         
         not entitled to deduct “Car and truck expenses” as claimed on his            
         Schedule C for 1997 and 1998.                                                
              Expenditures for family vacations are likewise clearly                  
         nondeductible, personal expenses.  Sec. 262; Johnson v.                      
         Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1962-23.  Accordingly, petitioner is not            
         entitled to deduct expenses for “Employee Benefits Programs” as              
         claimed on his Schedule C for 1997 and 1998.                                 
              Finally, premiums paid for life insurance by the insured are            
         nondeductible, personal expenses.  Sec. 262; sec. 1.262-1(b)(1),             
         Income Tax Regs.; see also sec. 264(a)(1).  Accordingly,                     
         petitioner is not entitled to deduct premiums paid for                       
         “Insurance” as claimed on his Schedule C for 1997.                           
              Notwithstanding the foregoing, petitioners contend that the             
         expenditures in question should be deductible in order to achieve            
         parity of treatment between employees and the self-employed.                 
         However, the question of what “should” be deductible is a                    
         political matter that falls exclusively within the authority of              
         Congress.  In other words, absent some constitutional defect, we             
         are constrained to apply the law as written, see Estate of Cowser            
         v. Commissioner, 736 F.2d 1168, 1171-1174 (7th Cir. 1984), affg.             
         80 T.C. 783, 787-788 (1983), and we may not rewrite the law                  
         because we may deem its effects susceptible of improvement, see              

              3(...continued)                                                         
          however, petitioner’s principal place of business was not his               
          residence but rather the Bainbridge office in Canton.                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011