costs incurred by New York attorney for a California bar review course were nondeductible
How later courts described this case
- costs incurred by New York attorney for a California bar review course were nondeductible
- a licensed California attorney different trade or business from a licensed New York attorney
- taxpayer must capitalize $ 801 bar examination fees and expenses to practice law in California because amount was too large to disregard its capital nature
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Irwin, J., dissenting: I disagree with that portion of the majority opinion which holds that petitioner may not treat the payment for the California bar review course as a part of the cost of acquiring his license to practice law in California. In the past, we have indeed adopted a “commonsense approach” in determining whether an educational expenditure qualifies a taxpayer for a new trade or business. Kenneth C. Davis, 65 T.C. 1014, 1019 (1976); William D. Glenn, 62 T.C. 270, 275 (1974); Ronald F. Weiszmann, 52 T.C. 1106, 1110 (1969), affd. 443 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1971). However, I think we depart from that approach when we hold that an attorney, licensed to practice law in New York, qualifies for a new trade or business when he obtains a license to practice law in California. In William D. Glenn, supra at 275 , we stated:
We have not found a substantial case law suggesting criteria for determining when the acquisition of new titles or abilities constitutes the entry into a new trade or business for purposes of section 1.162-5(c)(l), Income Tax Regs. What has been suggested, and we uphold such suggestion as the only commonsense approach to a classification, is that a comparison be made between the types of tasks and activities which the taxpayer was qualified to perform before the acquisition of a particular title or degree, and those which he is qualified to perform afterwards. Ronald F. Weiszmann, 52 T.C. 1106, 1110 (1969), affd. 443 F.2d 29 (C.A. 9, 1971). Where we have found such activities and abilities to be significantly different, we have disallowed an educational expense deduction, based on our finding that there had been qualification for a new trade or business. Ronald F. Weiszmann, supra. [Emphasis supplied.]
In my view there is no difference in the types of tasks and activities which petitioner was qualified to perform before and after he acquired his California license. By virtue of being licensed to practice in California, petitioner could perform the same types of tasks and activities in that state as he was already qualified to perform in New York. In this regard, respondent takes the position that once an individual is qualified to teach in State A, a college course taken in order to qualify for a teaching position in State B is neither a minimum educational requirement of his trade or business nor education qualifying him for a new trade or business. Rev. Rui. 71-58, 1971- 1 C.B. 55 . I would similarly conclude that once an individual is qualified to practice law in one State, a bar review course taken in preparation for the bar exam of another State is not education leading to qualification for a new trade or business.