- 14 -
transaction which gives rise to it must be of common or frequent
occurrence in the type of business involved." Deputy v. DuPont,
308 U.S. 488, 495 (1940) (citing Welch v. Helvering, supra at
114).
Petitioners are not entitled to a section 162 deduction for
their investment in the program. The program was not ordinary,
necessary, or helpful because petitioners were already in
compliance with the ADA through the use of TRS. Additionally,
the program did not serve a valid business purpose. Respondent’s
determination disallowing the deduction is sustained.
Conclusion
We sustain respondent’s determination in the notice of
deficiency, decreasing petitioners’ income by the amount of
bartering services income reported and disallowing a section 44
credit and a section 162 deduction. As we conclude that
petitioners are not entitled to a section 44 credit or a section
162 deduction, it is unnecessary for us to decide the proper
valuation of the program.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: May 25, 2011