May petitioner deduct as an ordinary and necessary business expense the money paid to a preacher who conducted prayer meetings, ministered to petitioner and his employees, and conducted various business-related tasks? Basically no. Almost all of the stuff he did – e.g., prayer meetings, etc. – was personal in nature. Therefore, we invoked 262, which prohibits the deduction of personal expenses. The preacher did a few odds and ends that were business related, so petitioner can take a 162 deduction for the portion of the salary related to those odds and ends, but that’s it.
1. Ascher offers a way to distinguish Trebilcock. The Trebilcock company was a real penny-anty operation. You can’t turn your family operation into a tax shelter. Maybe the Tax Court really thought that this was about the taxpayer’s personal problems, i.e., that he wasn’t doing it for his employees. To the extent that’s true, the Tax Court is right.
2. The Trebilcock court may have not focused on the appropriate issue; instead of looking at ordinary and necessary in the typical sense, look to see who is receiving the benefit of the activity in question. If it is the employer- taxpayer, then it should probably not be a business expense; if it is for the benefit of the employees, there should be some consideration for innovation and creativeness of a employer
a. GM hypo: if you had a bunch of religious men to improve productivity, then you would probably get a deduction.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Tax Law Cases and are similar to What happened in the case Trebilcock v. Commissioner (416)?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.
What's Your Answer to "What happened in the case Trebilcock v. Commissioner (416)?"