Facts
 | This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (July 2010) |
| Smith v. Commissioner | |
|---|---|
| Court | United States Board of Tax Appeals |
| Full case name | Henry C. and Lillie M. Wright Smith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
| Decided | December 7, 1939 |
| Citation(s) | 40 B.T.A. 1038 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Clarence V. Opper |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Opper |
| Keywords | |
Smith v. Commissioner, 40 B.T.A. 1038 (1939) [1] is a United States tax case discussing the boundaries of tax deductibility.
HELD:
The Smith decision demonstrates that it is the basic terms of existence of a person already at work that mark the boundary between business and personal expense. [2]
| | This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (July 2010) |
 | This section contains too many or overly lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry.(November 2012) |
The following is a quotation from the body of the court's judgment:
Petitioners would have us apply the ‘but for‘ test. They propose that but for the nurses the wife could not leave her child; but for the freedom so secured she could not pursue her gainful labors; and but for them there would be no income and no tax. This thought evokes an array of interesting possibilities. The fee to the doctor, but for whose healing service the earner of the family income could not leave his sickbed; the cost of the laborer's raiment, for how can the world proceed about its business unclothed; the very home which gives us shelter and rest and the food which provides energy, might all by an extension of the same proposition be construed as necessary to the operation of business and to the creation of income. Yet these are the very essence of those ‘personal‘ expenses the deductibility of which is expressly denied. Revenue Act of 1936, section 24(a).
We are told that the working wife is a new phenomenon. This is relied on to account for the apparent inconsistency that the expenses in issue are now a commonplace, yet have not been the subject of legislation, ruling, or adjudicated controversy. But if that is true it becomes all the more necessary to apply accepted principles to the novel facts. We are not prepared to say that the care of children, like similar aspects of family and household life, is other than a personal concern. The wife's services as custodian of the home and protector of its children are ordinarily rendered without monetary compensation. There results no taxable income from the performance of this service and the correlative expenditure is personal and not susceptible of deduction. Rosa E. Burkhart, 11 B.T.A. 275. Here the wife has chosen to employ others to discharge her domestic function and the services she performs are rendered outside the home. They are a source of actual income and taxable as such. But that does not deprive the same work performed by others of its personal character nor furnish a reason why its cost should be treated as an offset in the guise of a deductible item.
We are not unmindful that, as petitioners suggest, certain disbursements normally personal may become deductible by reason of their intimate connection with an occupation carried on for profit. In this category fall entertainment, Blackmer v. Commissioner, 70 Fed.(2d) 255 (C.C.A., 2d Cir.), and traveling expenses, Joseph W. Powell, 34 B.T.A. 655; affd., 94 Fed. (2d) 483 (C.C.A., 1st Cir.), and the cost of an actor's wardrobe, Charles Hutchison, 13 B.T.A. 1187. The line is not always an easy one to draw nor the test simple to apply. But we think its principle is clear. It may for practical purposes be said to constitute a distinction between those activities which, as a matter of common acceptance and universal experience, are ‘ordinary‘ or usual as the direct accompaniment of business pursuits, on the one hand; and those which, though they may in some indirect and tenuous degree relate to the circumstances of a profitable occupation, are nevertheless personal in their nature, of a character applicable to human beings generally, and which exist on that plane regardless of the occupation, *1040 though not necessarily of the station in life, of the individuals concerned. See Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111.
In the latter category, we think, fall payments made to servants or others occupied in looking to the personal wants of their employers. David Sonenblick, 4 B.T.A. 986. And we include in this group nursemaids retained to care for infant children. [3]
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.
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.
The Household and Dependent Care Credit is a nonrefundable tax credit available to United States taxpayers. Taxpayers that care for a qualifying individual are eligible. The purpose of the credit is to allow the taxpayer to be gainfully employed. This credit is created by 26 U.S. Code (U.S.C) § 21, section 21 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
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.
Generally, expenses related to the carrying-on of a business or trade are deductible from a United States taxpayer's adjusted gross income. For many taxpayers, this means that expenses related to seeking new employment, including some relevant expenses incurred for the taxpayer's education, 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.
In Jenkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1983-667, the U.S. Tax Court held that the payments Conway Twitty, a country singer, made to investors in a defunct restaurant business known as "Twitty Burger, Inc." were deductible under § 162 of the Internal Revenue Code as ordinary and necessary business expenses of petitioner's business as a country music performer.
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.
Midland Empire Packing Company v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. 635 (1950), was a case in which the United States Tax Court ruled that Midland Empire Packing Company was permitted to deduct the costs of lining its basement walls and floor. The costs were held to be repairs, and thus deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense under section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
United States v. Gotcher, 401 F.2d 118, is a tax case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Simon v. Commissioner, 68 F.3d 41, was a decision by the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals relating to the deductibility of expensive items or tools that may increase in value as a collectible but decrease in value if used in the course of a business or trade.
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.
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
Lohrke v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 679 (1967), is a significant case cited for its opinion which further articulated a much-litigated phrase "ordinary and necessary" business expense in the Tax Code, 26 U.S.C.S. § 162(a). Although it has been distinguished in nine cases, it has been followed by thirteen cases and cited in various treatises. In Lohrke, the Tax Court determined that when the taxpayer paid for expenses that he was not actually obligated to pay, he could still deduct them as an "ordinary and necessary" business expense under 26 U.S.C.S. § 162(a) of the Tax Code.
Mt. Morris Drive-in Theatre Co. v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 272 (1955), was a case in which the court considered whether the $8,224 spent to construct a drive-in theatre's drainage system was deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense, as a loss or if it was a non-depreciable capital expenditure. The court held that it was a capital expenditure.
Grynberg v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 255 (1984) was a case in which the United States Tax Court held that one taxpayer's prepaid business expenses were not ordinary and necessary expenses of the years in which they were made, and therefore the prepayments were not tax deductible. Taxpayers in the United States often seek to maximize their income and decrease their tax liability by prepaying deductible expenses and taking a deduction earlier rather than in a later tax year.
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court on the difference between business and personal expenses and the difference between ordinary business deductions and capital expenses. It is one of the most important income tax law cases.
Raytheon Production Corp. v. Commissioner, 144 F.2d 110, cert. denied, 323 U.S. 779 (1944) is a United States income tax case that discusses the tax deductibility of damages for loss of business good will. It included the following holdings:
Sibla v. Commissioner, 611 F.2d 1260, was an important income tax case regarding 26 U.S.C.S. § 162(a).
Ochs v. Commissioner, 195 F.2d 692 was an income tax case decided by Judge Augustus Noble Hand.