§161 — Allowance of deductions

14 [*14] Section 161 provides that in computing taxable income, “there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this [part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Code, which includes section 162], subject to the exceptions provided in part IX (sec.

Similarly, section 161 provides that deductions found in part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Code are allowed “subject to the exceptions provided in part IX”.

Similarly, section 161 provides that deductions found in part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Code are allowed “subject to the exceptions provided in part IX”.

Similarly, section 161 provides that deductions found in part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Code are allowed “subject to the exceptions provided in part IX”.

Similarly, section 161 provides that deductions found in part VI of subchapter B ofchapter 1 ofthe Code are allowed "subject to the exceptions provided in part IX".

Lukovsky filed no returns--and thus claimed no itemized .deductions pursuant to section 161--for the three years at issue .

Section 161 provides that “there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in * * * [section 162(a)], subject to the exceptions provided in * * * sec.

161 provides that the deductibility of the items specified in part VI of the Code (secs.

Section 161 provides that "In computing taxable income under section 63, there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this part, subject to the exceptions provided in part IX".

Section 161 provides for itemized deductions in computi g taxable income . However, deductions are a matter of legisla ive grace, and a taxpayer bears the burden of proving that hE has complied with the specific requirements for any deduction he claims . See INDOPCO, Inc . v . Commissioner, 503 U .S . 79, 84 (1992) ; New Colonial Ice Co . V . Helve

OPINION Section 161 provides for itemized deductions in computin g taxable income . However, deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and a taxpayer bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the deductions .3 See INDOPCO Inc . v . Commissioner , 503 U .S . 79, 84 (1992) ; New Colonial Ice Co . v . Helvering, 292 3 Under sec . 7491(a)(1), if

Section 161 provides that “there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in * * * [section 162(a)], subject to the exceptions provided in * * * sec. 261 and following, relating to items not deductible”. Section 261 provides that “no deduction - 21 - shall in any case be allowed in respect of the items specified in this part”; i.e., part

Section 161 provides that “there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in * * * [section 162(a)], subject to the exceptions provided in * * * sec. 261 and following, relating to items not deductible”. Section 261 provides that “no deduction - 21 - shall in any case be allowed in respect of the items specified in this part”; i.e., part

23(a)(1)(A) of the 1939 Code, the precursor to section 162(a)(2)). In Flowers, the taxpayer, an employee of a railroad, resided in Jackson, Mississippi. His principal post of business was in Mobile, Alabama, and he attempted to deduct as traveling 5 Sec. 161 provides: “In computing taxable income under section 63, there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this part, subject to the exceptions provided in part IX (sec. 261 and following, relating to items not deductible).” - 24 -

Idaho Power Co., supra at 16, the Supreme Court considered the interrelationship between Part VI (which includes section 161 and following, relating to items deductible) 17"It is clear that an expenditure need not be for a capital asset, as described in Section 1221 * * * in order to be classified as a capital expenditure." Georator Corp.

162), 22 In 1982 “an electing small business corporation (as defined in section 1371(b))” was struck from section 183(a) and “an S corporation” was inserted in its place.

To substantiate entitlement to a depreciation deduction, a taxpayer must establish the trade or business use of the property and its depreciable basis by showing the cost of the property, its useful life, and the previously allowable depreciation. Cluck v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 324, 337 (1995); Schnackel v. Commissioner, 15 [*15]

For example, section 261 (combined with section 161) ensures that certain capital expenditures for which a deduction is disallowed by section 263 are not deducted under section 167 for exhaustion and wear and tear.

§ 7730), which provides that, in judicial proceedings related to certain suits against the United States, affidavits may sometimes be accepted as evidence in lieu of testimony.

§ 161; Winkler, 2 T.C. at 738 (stating, in relation to a different provision, that “[c]learly, no loss deduction is authorized by this subsection”). Other provisions, including sections 165, 1211(b), and 1212(b), work together to govern the extent to which a loss arising from a section 1256(a) deemed sale is allowable as a deduction. If Congress in

, or reimbursements only for business expenses that are allowable as deductions by part VI (section 161 and the following), subchapter B, chapter 1 of the Code, and that are paid or incurred by the employee in similar but distinguishable.

See § 161 (providing that the deductions allowed under part VI, which includes section 162, are subject to the exceptions provided in part IX, which includes section 263). A capital 43 The Court acknowledges that a $200,000 international wire transfer was made to Tu from Genecure’s Piedmont Bank account (-2665) on June 11, 2012. Nonetheless, we decline

161; see also Commissioner v.

161; see also Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1974). The “primary effect” of a payment’s classification as a deductible business expense or nondeductible capital expenditure is seen in the timing of the 5An expense is “ordinary” if it is customary or usual within a particular trade, business, or industry or relates to a com

161; see also Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1974). The “primary effect” of a payment’s classification as a deductible business expense or nondeductible capital expenditure is seen in the timing of the 5An expense is “ordinary” if it is customary or usual within a particular trade, business, or industry or relates to a com

161; see also Nat'l Starch & Chem. Corp. v. Commissioner, 918 F.2d 426, 428 (3d Cir. 1990), aff'a 93 T.C. 67 (1989), aff'd sub nom. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992). Whether an expenditure is deductible or must be capitalized is a question offact. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. at 86. Section 263A requires capitalizat

Section 261 provides that “no deduction shall in any case be allowed in respect of the items specified in this part.” The phrase “this part” refers to part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1, entitled “Items Not Deductible”. “Expenditures in Connection With the Illegal Sale of Drugs” is an item specified in part IX. Section 280E provides: No

6311(d) (3) (A) provides in relevant part that "a payment of internal revenue taxes * * * by use of a credit card shall not be subject to section 161 of the Truth in Lending Act * * * if the error alleged by the person is an error relating to the underlying tax liability".

nd Surtaxes) of subtitle A (Income Taxes) of title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) of the United States Code. The relevance of the placement of section 162 within the Internal Revenue Code will become apparent momentarily. Also included within part VI is section 161. That section provides as follows: In computing taxable income under section 63, there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this part (i.e., part VI], subiect to the exceptions provided in part IX (sec. 261 and following,

Paragraph (2)(A) of section 62(a),6 entitled “Reimbursed expenses of employees”, provides that a taxpayer is allowed a deduction from gross income in arriving at adjusted gross income for “The deductions allowed by part VI (section 161 and following) which consist of expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer, in connection with the performance by him of services as an employee, under a reimb

Paragraph (2)(A) of section 62(a), entitled “Reimbursed expenses of employees”, provides that a taxpayer is allowed a deduction from gross income in arriving at adjusted gross income for “The deductions allowed by part VI (section 161 and following) which consist of expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer, in connection with the performance by him of services as an employee, under a reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangement[] with his employer.” Sec.

§§ 161, 261; see generally Commissioner v.

inent part: the term “adjusted gross income” means * * * gross income minus the following deductions: * * * * * * * (2) Certain trade and business deductions of employees.-- (A) Reimbursed expenses of employees.–- The deductions allowed by part VI (section 161 and following) which consist of expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer, in connection with the performance by him of services as an employee, under a reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangement with his employer.

) provides: [T]he term “adjusted gross income” means * * * gross income minus the following deductions: * * * * * * * (2) Certain trade and business deductions of employees.-- (A) Reimbursed expenses of employees.--The deductions allowed by part VI (section 161 and following) which consist of expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer, in connection with the performance by him of services as an employee, under a reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangement with his employer.

ordinary and necessary” business expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year. However, deductions allowed under section 162(a) are also “subject to the exceptions provided in part IX (sec. 261 and following, relating to items not deductible).” Sec. 161. The uniform capitalization rules of section 263A(a)(1) require that all direct costs and certain indirect costs allocable to certain property be included in inventory, or capitalized if such property is not inventory. Taxpayers subject to s

— The deductions allowed by part VI (section 161 and following) which consist of expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer, in connection with the performance by him of services as an employee, under a reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangement with his employer.

§§161, 261; see generally Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 1974, 418 U.S. 1, 94 S.Ct. 2757, 41 L.Ed.2d 535. Thus an expenditure that would ordinarily be a deductible expense must nonetheless be capitalized if it is incurred in connection with the acquisition of a capital asset. The function of these rules is to achieve an accurate measure of net in

§§ 161, 261; see generally Commissioner v.

§§ 161, 261; see generally Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 1974, 418 U.S. 1, 94 S.Ct. 2757, 41 L.Ed.2d 535. Thus an expenditure that would ordinarily be a deductible expense must nonetheless be capitalized if it is incurred in connection with the acquisition of a capital asset. The function of these rules is to achieve an accurate measure of net i

im is treated as an assertion that the fact does not exist where he knows that the disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the other party as to a basic assumption on which that party relies in making the contract. See 1 Restatement, supra sec. 161(b). The nondisclosure of a fact known to a party to a contract may be considered a fraudulent misrepresentation if the party intends the nondisclosure to mislead the other party. See id. sec. 162(1)(a). The Court has held that a settlement s

im is treated as an assertion that the fact does not exist where he knows that the disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the other party as to a basic assumption on which that party relies in making the contract. See 1 Restatement, supra sec. 161(b). The nondisclosure of a fact known to a party to a contract may be considered a fraudulent misrepresentation if the party intends the nondisclosure to mislead the other party. See id. sec. 162(1)(a). The Court has held that a settlement s

im is treated as an assertion that the fact does not exist where he knows that the disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the other party as to a basic assumption on which that party relies in making the contract. See 1 Restatement, supra sec. 161(b). The nondisclosure of a fact known to a party to a contract may be considered a fraudulent misrepresentation if the party intends the nondisclosure to mislead the other party. See id. sec. 162(1)(a). The Court has held that a settlement s

im is treated as an assertion that the fact does not exist where he knows that the disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the other party as to a basic assumption on which that party relies in making the contract. See 1 Restatement, supra sec. 161(b). The nondisclosure of a fact known to a party to a contract may be considered a fraudulent misrepresentation if the party intends the nondisclosure to mislead the other party. See id. sec. 162(1)(a). The Court has held that a settlement s

im is treated as an assertion that the fact does not exist where he knows that the disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the other party as to a basic assumption on which that party relies in making the contract. See 1 Restatement, supra sec. 161(b). The nondisclosure of a fact known to a party to a contract may be considered a fraudulent misrepresentation if the party intends the nondisclosure to mislead the other party. See id. sec. 162(1)(a). The Court has held that a settlement s

. Tellier, 383 U.S. 687, 689 (1966); Deputy v. Du Pont, supra at 495; Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 113 (1933). If a cost is a capital expenditure, the capitalization rules of section 263 take precedence over the deduction rules of section 162, sec. 161; Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1, 17 (1974), thereby preventing capital expenditures from being deducted currently under section 162. In determining whether a cost is a capital expenditure, the Supreme Court in INDOPCO, Inc. v. Co

x Regs., provides that an arrangement satisfies the business connection requirement if it: provides advances, allowances (including per diem allowances * * *), or reimbursements only for business expenses that are allowable as deductions by Part VI (section 161 and the following), subchapter B, chapter 1 of the Code, and that are paid or incurred by the employee in connection with the performance of services as an employee of the employer.

v. Tellier, 383 U.S. 687, 689 (1966); Deputy v. Du Pont, supra at 495; Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 113 (1933). If a cost is a capital expenditure, the capitalization rules of section 263 take precedence over the deduction rules of section 162, sec. 161; Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1, 17 (1974), thereby preventing capital expenditures from being deducted currently under section 162. In determining whether a cost is a capital expenditure, the Supreme Court in INDOPCO, Inc. v. C

(2) Certain trade or business deductions of employees.-- (A) Reimbursed expenses of employees.--The deductions allowed by part VI (section 161 and following) which consist of expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer, in connection with the performance by him of services as an employee, under a reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangement with his employer.

taxpayer, if such trade or business does not consist of the performance of services by the taxpayer as an employee. (2) Certain trade and business deductions of employees.-- (A) Reimbursed expenses of employees.--The deductions allowed by part VI (sec. 161 and following) which consist of expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer, in connection with the performance by him of services as an employee, under a reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangement with his employer. The fact that the

Petitioner seeks to deduct his total $1,016 tuition payment as a "condition of employment as a graduate associate" pursuant to either section 161 or section 212.