Fred W. Amend Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
454 F.2d 399, 29 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 301, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6459 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An expense is not a deductible 'ordinary and necessary' business expense under IRC § 162(a) if the benefit derived from the service is inherently personal to an individual, even if the expense was incurred to address business-related problems. The nature of the expense, not just its business-related origin, is a determinative factor in assessing deductibility.
Facts:
- Fred W. Amend Co. was a corporation manufacturing jellied candies, with its founder, Fred W. Amend, serving as chairman and treasurer and co-owning approximately 47.5% of the company's stock.
- Beginning in 1954, Amend personally utilized the services of R. M. Halverstadt, a Christian Science practitioner, for both personal and business problems.
- In 1961, the corporation's board authorized the employment of a Christian Science practitioner to consult with officers and employees on corporate matters.
- Amend, on behalf of the corporation, retained Halverstadt for an annual salary to provide consultations on business issues such as personnel, sales, and financing.
- Of all the company's executives and employees, only Amend used Halverstadt's services.
- During consultations, Halverstadt did not offer concrete business solutions but instead used questioning to clarify Amend's thinking and prayer to seek 'enlightenment' and 'the right idea' for Amend.
- The corporation paid Halverstadt $5,500 in fiscal year 1964 and $6,200 in fiscal year 1965 for these services.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred W. Amend Co. (taxpayer) claimed deductions on its income tax returns for payments made to a Christian Science practitioner for its fiscal years 1964 and 1965.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deductions and assessed tax deficiencies against the corporation.
- The taxpayer petitioned the United States Tax Court (court of first instance) to challenge the Commissioner's determination.
- The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner's disallowance, ruling the payments were not deductible business expenses.
- The taxpayer, as petitioner-appellant, appealed the Tax Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do payments made by a corporation to a Christian Science practitioner for consultations aimed at helping an executive address business problems qualify as 'ordinary and necessary' business expenses deductible under Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Senior Circuit Judge Castle
No. The payments made to the Christian Science practitioner do not qualify as deductible business expenses because the services rendered were inherently personal to the executive. While an expense must have a business origin to be deductible under Section 162(a), the inquiry does not end there; the nature of the expense must not be personal, as proscribed by Section 262. The court found that Halverstadt offered no business advice but rather sought to create a 'state of harmony' and bring Amend's thinking into conformity with Christian Science teachings. This benefit, including a calmer mind and clearer judgment, was inherently personal to Amend, making the expense non-deductible for the corporation. The court rejected alternative arguments that the payments were additional compensation or a medical expense, finding no evidence in the record to support either claim.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between deductible business expenses under IRC § 162 and non-deductible personal expenses under § 262. The court's holding establishes that the 'origin of the claim' doctrine is insufficient on its own; the intrinsic nature of the service provided is a co-equal, critical factor. This precedent impacts the deductibility of expenses for services like executive coaching, wellness programs, and other professional development that provide a significant, albeit indirect, benefit to a business but are primarily personal in nature. The decision requires a nuanced analysis of who the primary beneficiary of the service is—the corporation in a business capacity or the individual in a personal capacity.
