Stanley C. Cameron - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
          trading activities.  These expenses consisted of amounts spent on           
          supplies, books, journals, computer software, online services,              
          classes, seminars, travel, and meals.                                       
               Respondent determined in the notice of deficiency that the             
          $200 and $28 expenses deducted for 2002 were deductible under               
          section 212.  Respondent also determined that petitioner was not            
          entitled to deduct any of the remaining expenses claimed on his             
          2002 and 2003 Schedules C.  As to all of the expenses, the notice           
          states that petitioner had not established that they were                   
          “ordinary and necessary business expenses” or were “expended for            
          the purpose designated”.  The notice also states as to the                  
          claimed expenses for continuing education and ongoing services              
          that petitioner did not establish that any of those expenses were           
          incurred for the production of income or, to the extent of the              
          expenses claimed for education, that they “were incurred                    
          primarily to maintain or improve skills required in your present            
          employment, trade, or business, or to meet the express                      
          requirements of your employer”.                                             
                                       OPINION                                        
               Petitioner argues that he was in the trade or business of              
          trading securities and entitled to deduct expenses related to his           
          trading activities as “above the line” deductions pursuant to               
          section 162(a).  Respondent argues that petitioner did not trade            
          his securities in a trade or business and, to the extent that his           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007