- 5 -
intends to continue practicing his nonlegal profession
as an employee of such employer. Nevertheless, the
expenditures made by A in attending law school are not
deductible since this course of study qualifies him for
a new trade or business.
The regulations establish an objective standard for
determining whether an educational expense is deductible. Bodley
v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1357, 1360 (1971); Weiler v.
Commissioner, 54 T.C. 398, 401 (1970). In Arbaugh v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-565, the Court held that, pursuant
to the regulations, “law school expenses constitute nondeductible
personal expenses regardless of the taxpayer’s primary motive in
pursuing such studies and regardless of whether such education
improves or helps maintain the taxpayer’s skills in his business
or profession, because the course of study qualifies the taxpayer
for a new trade or business.” The regulations “do not predicate
disallowance of the deduction on the actual practice of the new
trade or business.” Weiszmann v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 1106,
1111 (1969), affd. 443 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1971). In Weiler this
Court held that law school expenses were not deductible by an
Internal Revenue agent even though he never intended to practice
in the legal profession. The Court held that whether the
taxpayer’s present employment be considered that of an
accountant, internal revenue agent, or tax expert, because the
taxpayer was “qualifying himself as a lawyer, a trade or business
separate and distinct from that in which he is now engaged”, his
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011