- 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