Job Related Ed

[S T]

Police Officer - incurred expenses for K-9 school - would this be a Job related Training Expense?

Sandy

[ddoshan]

Seems reasonable to me. However, you would think the employer would pay for that.

[FEDUKE404]

Likely a valid deduction

Seems reasonable to me. However, you would think the employer would pay for that.

That is the crux of the matter.

The old (and I assume current) definition of eligible employee expenses had verbiage along the lines of "to maintain and/or to improve currently used job skills."

At some point you trip over into skills that would qualify a person for a "new" job for which he is not currently qualified.

Generally speaking, one would expect an employer to cover such "necessary" expenses. OTOH, due to current budget situations, that might not be a viable solution.

I would think the expenses are likely allowable as an employee business expense (will they even survive the 2% floor?) but I would try to gather all of the relevant facts prior to reaching a final conclusion.

FE

[S T]

More info

Police Officer - current City Police Dept - does not have a K-9 program in place, and asked the T/p to intiate program - as result of that T/p needed K-9 training which he paid for at his own expense - yes as a result of the City Budget Cuts

T/p is already qualified in his job as a Police Officer and Swat Team Member - so would the addition of K-9 training be an extension of his "to maintain or improve job skills" -

I was thinking of the Form 2106 subject to 2% reduction and with other Police Officer Deductions will survive and produce deduction

Thanks

Sandy

[Y2KEA]

Did these expenses "maintain or improve job skills" or qualify him for a new profession?

While he may now be a "certified K-9 handler", he is still a cop, not a physician.

I would have no problem putting it on the 2106.

[S T]

Still a police officer, still a member of the Police Dept Swat Team - expanded program for K-9 within his City Police Dept.

Sandy

[taxea]

Any position that a police officer is assigned to within the department is not considered a new career. Each time "we" are promoted or transferred to a different division of the department does not constitue a new career. This is a job-related expense. The reason why the department did not pay the cost is probably because the K-9 unit was suggested by the officer who, perhaps, offered to pay the cost of the training in order to get the K-9 unit into the department rather than wait for the bureaucratic BS that goes along with trying to get something approved. If the city doesn't have to pay the cost they are more likely to say yes. I would even bet that this officer is paying the expenses of maintaining the animal which would also be a job related expense.

[FEDUKE404]

Fine line to walk

Not to even approach being argumentative (I would likely give him the training deduction), BUT:

Having prepared tax returns for numerous LEOs, I do know there is a very fine line to walk between "necessary" business expenses and those....which are not.

Most departments will provide their officers with the proper equipment to perform their job. Sadly, some may not.

However, the flip side of the coin is I have encountered the mind set where the officers go out and buy several "extra" sidearms/shotguns/howitzers/cruise missiles or whatever with the explanation those are "needed" for their job. Fully stocking a gun safe is likely not a qualifying business deduction.

The other explanation I have encountered usually goes along the lines of "x is better than y" or "I prefer x because it is better than y which my employer provides."

I'm sure some here will disagree, but as tax professionals we do need to understand the finer distinctions related to "ordinary and necessary" business expenses.

FE

[Burke]

Yeah, I would have drawn the line on the cruise missiles. How about LPG's?

[erchess]

I struggle

with the issue of when education is or is not putting one in a new profession. I hear taxea tell us that when a cop gets transferred to a different job he or she is still a cop and has not changed professions. What if the cop gets education designed to cause eligibility to be a Chief of Police? After all, unless I'm very much misinformed a teacher who studies to become an administrator can't deduct those expenses as job related because being an administrator is considered a different profession. What if a Doctor who is board certified in Family Practice decides to study to become board certified in Gerontology? Does it matter whether he plans to continue to also practice family medicine but is simply responding to the relative aging of the population in his town or whether he intends to drop patients who are not elderly? (My own opinion is either way he's still a physician so the education is deductible.) What if someone who has been doing tax and non tax accounting work as a non certified public accountant decides that in light of IRS requirements he or she had better study for the RTRP test or the SEE? Does it matter which? (My own opinion is that RTRP is meeting a new requirement to keep doing the same work. OTOH becoming an EA would enable him to represent at appeals and to represent at all with returns prepared by others, neither of which were previously allowed and therefore is at least arguably a new trade or profession.)

What I am saying is that I see few bright lines in this area. I always ask clients how their job changes or will change (tasks, pay, prestige, title) as a result of the education and pay attention to what they say and do the best I can.

[JohnH]

I think every example you cited qualifies as tax deductible education, including the teacher who takes courses to become an administrator.

Heres a link to a pretty good article on the subject - about a year old

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2010/Dec/20103279.htm

I'd also go along with the K-9 training being deductible under most circumstances.

[erchess]

Hey John

TY for weighing in. My knowledge of the situation regarding teachers dates to when I actually was a teacher. This was before there were education credits and the only way to get a benefit for education was to put it on Sch A as Misc/Subject. We were told that courses to make us a better classroom teacher were deductible even if they led to a Master's Degree and considerably higher pay and or to teaching another subject or grade level. We were told that education to become an administrator was not deductible. My memory is hazy but but the source of this advice was either the school system or the National Association of Educators. For a discussion of this issue from around that time you might want to see the book "Tales Out of School". The author (sorry I don't remember his name) was at the time a high school social studies teacher at a very high powered public high school in Arlington Va. In the relevant part he discusses the rules of tax deductible education and the struggle he personally had to get courses toward a law degree from the College of William And Mary counted toward the state requirements to renew his teaching certificate and the costs deducted on his tax return. The latter required a tax court case. The relevant fact was that he intended to use and did use his legal education to make him a better social studies teacher and not to engage in the practice of law. He does state that education to become an administrator would not have been deductible.

[JohnH]

Hi Edwin:

I think he was mistaken, unless he wrote the book before Treas. Reg 1.162-5 was written. But whatever the case, this is another one of thise situations where the tax law tries to make distinctions that don't always exist, or at the very least it's inconsistent.

[taxea]

Not to even approach being argumentative (I would likely give him the training deduction), BUT:

Having prepared tax returns for numerous LEOs, I do know there is a very fine line to walk between "necessary" business expenses and those....which are not.

Most departments will provide their officers with the proper equipment to perform their job. Sadly, some may not.

However, the flip side of the coin is I have encountered the mind set where the officers go out and buy several "extra" sidearms/shotguns/howitzers/cruise missiles or whatever with the explanation those are "needed" for their job. Fully stocking a gun safe is likely not a qualifying business deduction.

The other explanation I have encountered usually goes along the lines of "x is better than y" or "I prefer x because it is better than y which my employer provides."

I'm sure some here will disagree, but as tax professionals we do need to understand the finer distinctions related to "ordinary and necessary" business expenses.

FE

In the case of all the extra guns, and yes I know those cops....I would ask for, on letterhead from the chief, a letter that indicates that the additional weapons are sanctioned by the department for use when the officer is on duty. Without that he is just a private gun collector.

Erchess-
A promotion to Chief is not a new "career". Even as an administrator he is still a sworn officer of the law by State Penal Code and therefore it is truly no different that promoting to Sgt, Lt, Capt etc. He has just made himself better in his chosen career field.

[okie1tax]

Job related Ed

All this talk about Schedule A. Should also look at AOC, LLC and Tution and Fees deduction. Very much depends on cost involved to want to take on Schedule A.