Ralph E. and Mildred E. Galyen - Page 14

                                       - 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               
               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.                       
               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