- 8 -
title did not accurately describe her role at the company. He
suggests that the company hired petitioner for her knowledge of
the beverage industry and not for her marketing knowledge.
Petitioner’s counsel tried to show that her experience at Snapple
and her education at HBS were probably irrelevant to most of
Refreshment Brands’s promotion activity. Petitioner’s counsel
did not elicit any testimony or introduce sufficient evidence to
convince the Court of this interpretation of petitioner’s career
progression. In any event, even if we were so convinced, we
would still need to consider the second disqualification category
in section 1.162-5(b), Income Tax Regs.
B. Qualification for New Trade or Business
Petitioner’s counsel argues that petitioner was involved in
management for beverage companies before and after earning her
M.B.A. and that her new degree merely maintained or improved her
skills in working as an entrepreneur, project manager, or
supervisor in the beverage industry. Whether education maintains
or improves skills required by the individual in her employment
is a question of fact. Boser v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1124, 1131
(1981). A taxpayer must demonstrate a direct and proximate
relationship between the education and the skills required in her
employment. Kornhauser v. United States, 276 U.S. 145, 153
(1928); Schwartz v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 877, 889 (1978).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008