- 7 -
indicating that petitioner had flown any airplane aside from his
time in the service and those on which he trained when working
towards his FAA certifications.
Prior to new-hire training petitioner had taken courses and
received the highest level of FAA fixed-wing certification.
Petitioner, however, had never worked for an airline. In
Wassenaar v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1195 (1979), this Court held
that being a certified member of a profession is not the same as
carrying on that profession for the purpose of section 162(a).
While it is possible to argue, because he was hired by CE prior
to the commencement of training and because of his FAA
certifications, that he was engaged in the trade or business of
being a fixed-wing airline pilot for purposes of section 162,
“the statute has consistently been construed to require activity
prior to the outlay for education.” Kohen v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1982-625. Petitioner’s first day of employment was the
same day training started. The mere establishment of an
employer-employee relationship is insufficient for purposes of
section 1.162-5, Income Tax Regs. While no minimum period of
activity is articulated by the statute or its regulations, it is
clear that one day of employment lacks the essential
characteristics of being established in a particular trade or
business. See Link v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. at 464.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011