- 11 -
and circumstances, particularly where petitioner was promoted
before he completed the MBA program. We hold therefore that
neither petitioner’s enrollment in the MBA program nor his
completion of the program met a minimum education requirement of
Selane Products. The more difficult question, rather, is whether
the MBA qualified petitioner for a new trade or business.
2. Whether the MBA Qualified Petitioner for a New Trade or
Business
We must next determine whether petitioner’s MBA qualified
him to perform a trade or business that he was unqualified to
perform before he earned the MBA. Whether an education qualifies
a taxpayer for a new trade or business depends upon the tasks and
activities he or she was qualified to perform before the
education and those that he or she was qualified to perform
afterwards. See Glenn v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 270, 275 (1974);
Weiszmann v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 1106, 1110 (1969), affd. per
curiam 443 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1971). The Court has repeatedly
disallowed education expenses where the education qualifies the
taxpayer to perform “significantly” different tasks and
activities. Browne v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 723, 726 (1980)
(citing Diaz v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1067, 1074 (1978), affd.
without published opinion 607 F.2d 995 (2d Cir. 1979)); Glenn v.
Commissioner, supra. The relevant inquiry is whether the
taxpayer is objectively qualified in a new trade or business.
See Robinson v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 550, 554-556 (1982); Glenn
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011