- 9 -
that the gym membership fee is not an ordinary or necessary
expense of petitioner’s employment as a firefighter and arson
investigator or as the president of Zomans Productions.
Petitioner argues that the gym membership fee was an
ordinary and necessary expense of his employment as a
professional firefighter. Petitioner contends that fitness is
mandatory since a healthy body is important to the performance of
his duties as a firefighter. Petitioner succinctly explained:
“my tool is my body.”
Under section 262(a), no deductions are allowed for
personal, living, or family expenses. Moreover, section 262
takes precedence over section 162. Sharon v. Commissioner, 66
T.C. 515, 522-523 (1976), affd. 591 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1978).
The taxpayer must demonstrate that the expenses were different
from or in excess of what he would have spent for personal
purposes. Sutter v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 170, 173 (1953);
Tschetter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-326; see also Moss v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1073, 1078 (1983) (finding that daily meals
are an inherently personal expense, and a taxpayer bears a heavy
burden to prove that the meals are routinely deductible), affd.
758 F.2d 211 (7th Cir. 1985).
A gym membership fee is an inherently personal expense. It
is desirable to be physically fit regardless of one’s profession.
Petitioner has not offered any evidence to show that his gym
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