- 8 -
lead” petitioner to qualify for a new trade or business.9 Sec.
1.162-5(b)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs.
It may be all but impossible for a taxpayer to establish
that a bachelor’s degree program does not qualify the taxpayer in
a new trade or business.10 See Malek v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1985-428. We stated in Carroll v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 213, 216
(1968), affd. 418 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1969):
Millions of people must secure a general college
education before they commence their life’s employment,
and it is generally accepted that obtaining such
education is a personal responsibility in preparing for
one’s career. * * * Though his perseverance is to be
admired, we do not believe that he should receive tax
deductions not available to those who complete their
general college preparation before beginning their
career. Furthermore, a general college education has
more than economic utility. It broadens one’s
understanding and increases his appreciation of his
social and cultural environment.
9 In Glasgow v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1972-77, affd. 486
F.2d 1045 (10th Cir. 1973), we allowed an ordained minister to
deduct the expenses involved in gaining an undergraduate degree.
The opinion notes that, as a general proposition, the costs of an
undergraduate college education are not deductible, but that an
exception was warranted under the circumstances involved in the
case. The case was decided under the 1958 regulations. See
supra note 8. These earlier regulations were subjective and
stressed the “primary purpose” for a taxpayer’s educational
expenditures. As a result, an educational expenditure which
qualified a taxpayer for a new trade or business would not be
disallowed as an ordinary and necessary business expense
deduction unless the education was undertaken primarily for the
purpose of obtaining a new position.
10 We note that the regulations deal specifically with
“teaching and related duties”. Sec. 1.162-5(b)(3)(i), Income Tax
Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011