Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Idiotic Gift

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Bees Knees
    Travel as a form of education is not deductible - Section 274(m)(2).

    I think the IRS Pubs use the example of a High School French teacher traveling to France to take in the culture - no deduction for the trip.
    Sorry to hear that, Bees. About ten years ago I did just that for a French-teaching Lithuanian college prof. Guess IRS had not heard about the rule either.

    Beau: any Crossfire-style rebuttal before I drop that writing class?

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Black Bart
      Beau: any Crossfire-style rebuttal before I drop that writing class?
      Mr. Bart, trying to stir things up again.

      Don't go dropping that writing class just yet.

      The question is whether the travel is "Travel as a form of education," which is specifically listed as nondeductible (IRC section 274(m)(2)).

      The IRS takes the position that all such trips are nondeductible. However, in Jorgensen v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2000-138, the Tax Court overruled the IRS. It was a high school English teacher who took college courses in Asia because most of her students were Asian. The IRS threw out the expenses citing the "Travel as a form of education" rule. The Tax court said no, the travel was primarily to improve the teacher's skills and the courses went beyond mere travel. The deduction was allowed because the travel was directly related to specific job duties of the teacher.

      So, again, it's facts and circumstances. If the travel is directly connected to the taxpayer's duties, it's a fact in favor of moving beyond the mere educational value.

      Comment


        #33
        Just the facts, Jack

        Originally posted by Armando Beaujolais

        The whole point is that...It's a facts and circumstances deal.

        One guy was able to write off his dog as a business expense because he owned a junk yard and the dog was necessary to protect it from critters and humans at night
        Hmm, let me see now. Am I following your train of thought correctly? Here's a "for instance." Twenty years ago I was keeping books for a rich guy who bought a thousand-dollar shotgun to keep around the house (and with which he also occasionally shot ducks). He instructed me to charge it to "Security" expense. About a year after he bought it he was the victim of a home-invasion armed robbery.

        So; since he was robbed; it's deductible? If he had not been robbed; no deduction?

        RSVP

        Comment


          #34
          Equivalent

          Since you can deduct costs incurred to produce taxable income, is that equivalent to costs incurred to prevent a deductible loss?

          Comment


            #35
            One guy was able to write off his dog as a business expense because he owned a junk yard and the dog was necessary to protect it from critters and humans at night. But I'll bet I'd have a tough sell if that gal who does day care and I wrote off her dog as part of business use of the home will have a rough time if she ever gets audited.

            Speaking of dogs, you’ve heard about song writers hiding subliminal messages in their records? They say that if you play the record backwards, you can here the hidden message.

            The story goes, they tried that with a country western record once. The guy actually got his dog, his girl, and his pick up truck back.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by jainen
              Since you can deduct costs incurred to produce taxable income, is that equivalent to costs incurred to prevent a deductible loss?
              Good question, but no.

              Regulation 1.212-1 says nontrade or nonbusiness expenses can be deducted only if incurred "for the production or collection of income which, if and when realized, will be required to be included in income..."

              "...for the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of such income..."

              Assuming it was a personal-use residence, no shotgun deduction.

              Same deal with the "security" deduction. If he's protecting his home, no deduction. If he's protecting his business, I'm afraid that gem might fall into the "lavish and extravagant" category, fall off the "ordinary and necessary" cliff.

              Certainly, you write off guns and ammo for cops, even though they carry during personal hours. But I don't know about writing off the shotgun for the guy who wants it in case he has to use it to get his dawg, his girl, and his pickup truck back.

              Comment

              Working...
              X