- 10 -
Petitioner argues that being hired into the general
management program did necessarily mean an assignment to upper
management would follow. Although petitioner's education would
not by itself qualify her for a new profession, the regulation
requires only that the program of study being pursued "will lead
to qualifying" petitioner in a new trade or business. Sec.
1.162-5(b)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs. Payments for education that
must be combined with an examination or experience to qualify a
taxpayer for a new trade or business are not deductible. See
Cristea v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-533 (and cases cited
therein).
From the record in this case, the Court concludes that
petitioner's degree led to qualifying her to perform
significantly different tasks and activities than she performed
before the education. The education therefore qualified
petitioner for a new trade or business.
Because petitioner's satisfaction of both "disallowance"
tests of section 1.162-5(b)(2) and (3), Income Tax Regs., will
prohibit the deduction of her educational expenses, the Court
will not address respondent's argument that petitioner was not
engaged in a trade or business in 1998.
To the extent the Court has not addressed other arguments
and contentions petitioner raised, the Court concludes they are
without merit. Respondent's determination that petitioners are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011