Job-seeking expense tax deductions

Last updated

Generally, expenses related to the carrying-on of a business or trade are deductible from a United States taxpayer's adjusted gross income. [1] For many taxpayers, this means that expenses related to seeking new employment, including some relevant expenses incurred for the taxpayer's education, [2] can be deducted, resulting in a tax break, as long as certain criteria are met. On average, United States job seekers can spend upwards of $300 per month in related job-seeking services. [3]

First, such costs must qualify as expenses, as contemplated by the U.S. tax code, and not as capital expenditures (generally, a capital expenditure is a cost associated with producing a benefit with a useful life of more than one year, such as a long-term investment). [4] Second, if the cost qualifies as an expense, it may be deductible if it can be characterized as an "ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business...." [1] For purposes of the average taxpayer looking to deduct expenses related to seeking new employment, the relevant inquiry is whether the new position sought can be deemed to be "carrying on" the prior business or trade of that taxpayer, [5] as costs associated with starting up a new business or trade are not immediately deductible and are subject to a special form of amortization. [6]

Whether seeking new employment, and the costs associated therewith, can be deemed as "carrying on" a prior business or trade is fact- and context-specific. However, the IRS, with approval of the courts, has insisted on a high degree of sameness between the new position sought and the previous means of employment. [7] This means that if substantial differences exist between the duties, tasks, and activities of the taxpayer's prior job and those of the job he now seeks, [8] then the expenses incurred will be deemed to be start-up costs, and not subject to immediate deduction. [9] Similarly, if the taxpayer has undergone a significant hiatus between the prior position of employment and the one now sought, expenses will not be considered "carrying on" the business or trade. [10] Again, whether a hiatus would be considered significant is highly fact- and context-specific. The relevant inquiry here should be whether there is a "substantial lack of continuity." [11] If the taxpayer terminated his previous employment with little indication of seeking a new position in the same profession, it is likely that time spent unemployed or employed in a different field would prevent the taxpayer from claiming that he was "carrying on" his prior business or trade. [12]

The ability to deduct the costs of seeking new employment is a distinct advantage for many taxpayers, but one likely to be overlooked. To recap, a taxpayer may only deduct the costs associated with seeking new employment when that taxpayer is searching for a new employer in substantially the same profession. Further, a significant hiatus between jobs may bar claiming this type of deduction.

Related Research Articles

Expenditure is an outflow of money, or any form of fortune in general, to another person or group as payment for an item, service, or other category of costs. For a tenant, rent is an expense. For students or parents, tuition is an expense. Buying food, clothing, furniture or an automobile is often referred to as an expense. An expense is a cost that is "paid" or "remitted", usually in exchange for something of value. Something that seems to cost a great deal is "expensive". Something that seems to cost little is "inexpensive". "Expenses of the table" are expenses of dining, refreshments, a feast, etc.

Tax deduction is a reduction of income that is able to be taxed and is commonly a result of expenses, particularly those incurred to produce additional income. Tax deductions are a form of tax incentives, along with exemptions and credits. The difference between deductions, exemptions and credits is that deductions and exemptions both reduce taxable income, while credits reduce tax.

A tax refund or tax rebate is a payment to the taxpayer when the taxpayer pays more tax than they owe.

Per diem or daily allowance is a specific amount of money that an organization gives an individual, typically an employee, per day to cover living expenses when travelling on the employer's business.

Income taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal government, and most states. The income taxes are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An alternative tax applies at the federal and some state levels.

In the United States tax law, an above-the-line deduction is a deduction that the Internal Revenue Service allows a taxpayer to subtract from his or her gross income in arriving at "adjusted gross income" for the taxable year. These deductions are set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 62. A taxpayer's gross income minus his or her above-the-line deductions is equal to the adjusted gross income. Because these deductions are taken before adjusted gross income is calculated, they are designated "above-the-line". Thus, those deductions allowed in computing "taxable income" under section 63 of the IRC are "below-the-line deductions". Above-the-line deductions may be more valuable to high-income taxpayers than below-the-line deductions. Since tax year 2018, above-the-line deductions are reported on Schedule 1 of IRS Form 1040.

Under the U.S. tax code, businesses expenditures can be deducted from the total taxable income when filing income taxes if a taxpayer can show the funds were used for business-related activities, not personal or capital expenses. Capital expenditures either create cost basis or add to a preexisting cost basis and cannot be deducted in the year the taxpayer pays or incurs the expenditure.

In tax law, amortization refers to the cost recovery system for intangible property. Although the theory behind cost recovery deductions of amortization is to deduct from basis in a systematic manner over an asset's estimated useful economic life so as to reflect its consumption, expiration, obsolescence or other decline in value as a result of use or the passage of time, many times a perfect match of income and deductions does not occur for policy reasons.

Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (1946), was a Federal income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held that in order to deduct the expense of traveling under § 162 of the Internal Revenue Code, the expense must be incurred while away from home, and must be a reasonable expense necessary or appropriate to the development and pursuit of a trade or business. In this case, the attorney in question could only deduct traveling expenses from her gross income when the railroad's business forced attorney to travel and live temporarily at some place other than the railroad's principal place of business. Where attorney preferred for personal reasons to live in a different state from the location of his employer's principal office, and his duties required frequent trips to that office, the evidence sustained Tax Court's finding that the necessary relation between expenses of such trips and the railroad's business was lacking.

Pevsner v. Commissioner, 628 F.2d 467 is a United States federal income tax case before the Fifth Circuit. It dealt with the issue of whether clothes purchased solely for use at work could be treated as a business expense deduction on a taxpayer's return.

Under the United States taxation system, an enterprise may deduct business expenses from its taxable income, subject to certain conditions. On occasion the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has challenged such deductions, regarding the activities in question as illegitimate, and in certain circumstances the Internal Revenue Code provides for such challenge. Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have in general upheld the deductions, where there is not a specific governmental policy in support of disallowing them.

Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23 (1987), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which addressed the issue of what qualifies as being either a trade or business under Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Under the terms of § 162(a), tax deductions should be granted "for all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business for tax purposes." However, the term "trade or Business" is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code. The case of Commissioner v. Groetzinger examined what is required for an activity to rise to the level of a "trade or business" for tax purposes. The particular question presented in this case was whether a full-time gambler who made wagers for his own account was engaged in a "trade or business."

Internal Revenue Code § 212 provides a deduction, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, for expenses incurred in investment activities. Taxpayers are allowed to deduct

all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year--

<i>Vitale v. Commissioner</i>

Vitale v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1999-131 (1999) is a case that demonstrates a policy limit on the deduction of business expenses.

United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299 (1967), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that in order for the taxpayer to be allowed to deduct the cost of his meals incurred while on a business trip, the trip must have required him to stop for sleep or rest.

Section 183 of the United States Internal Revenue Code, sometimes referred to as the "hobby loss rule," limits the losses that can be deducted from income which are attributable to hobbies and other not-for-profit activities. Generally, losses which occur in for-profit activities are not limited and can be used to offset other income from other activities. But the § 183 limitation curtails those deductions when the activity is deemed a hobby.

Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, is part of United States taxation law. It concerns deductions for business expenses. It is one of the most important provisions in the Code, because it is the most widely used authority for deductions. If an expense is not deductible, then Congress considers the cost to be a consumption expense. Section 162(a) requires six different elements in order to claim a deduction. It must be an

Taxation of illegal income in the United States arises from the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), enacted by the U.S. Congress in part for the purpose of taxing net income. As such, a person's taxable income will generally be subject to the same Federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally.

United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 481 U.S. 239 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case, which hold that under 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulation 1.461-1(a)(2), the "all events" test entitled an accrual-basis taxpayer to a federal income tax business-expense deduction, for the taxable year in which (1) all events had occurred which determined the fact of the taxpayer's liability, and (2) the amount of that liability could be determined with reasonable accuracy.

Bring Jobs Home Act

The Bring Jobs Home Act is a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to grant business taxpayers a tax credit for up to 20% of insourcing expenses incurred for eliminating a business located outside the United States and relocating it within the United States, and deny a tax deduction for outsourcing expenses incurred in relocating a U.S. business outside the United States.

References

  1. 1 2 Internal Revenue Code § 162(a)
  2. Treasury Regulations § 1.162-5
  3. "The Average Cost of Job Hunting in the United States And How to Prepare for It". The Average Cost of Job Hunting in the United States And How to Prepare for It. Retrieved 2021-10-21.
  4. Internal Revenue Code § 263
  5. See McDonald v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 323 U.S. 57, 60 (1944); Estate of Rockefeller v. Commissioner, 762 F.2d 264, 268 (2d Cir. 1985)
  6. Internal Revenue Code § 195
  7. Estate of Rockefeller, 762 F.2d at 268
  8. Id. at 268–69 (and cited cases)
  9. See Id. at 269 (quoting Davis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 65 T.C. 1014, 1019 (1976))
  10. Id. at 270 (and cited references)
  11. Id.
  12. Id.