Kopaigora v. Comm'r
2016 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 35, 2016 T.C. Summary Opinion 35 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Education expenses are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under Internal Revenue Code section 162 if they maintain or improve skills required in the taxpayer's employment and do not qualify the taxpayer for a new trade or business, even if the taxpayer experiences temporary unemployment while actively seeking to continue in the same line of work.
Facts:
- Alex Kopaigora began working for Marriott International Corp. in 2002 as an accounting manager.
- In June 2006, Alex accepted a position as senior assistant controller for the Marriott hotel in Los Angeles International Airport (Marriott LAX), where he managed financial operations, audited, and supervised employees.
- In July 2010, Alex enrolled in the EMBA degree program at Brigham Young University (BYU) in Utah to improve his leadership skills in corporate finance and management.
- Alex maintained his employment at Marriott LAX on weekdays while traveling to Salt Lake City, Utah, every other weekend to attend classes at BYU.
- On April 18, 2011, Alex's employment with Marriott International Corp. was terminated for reasons later found to be unjustified.
- After his termination, Alex continued to pursue his EMBA degree at BYU and actively searched for full-time employment within the corporate finance and accounting field, seeking roles such as controller, assistant controller, senior manager, vice president, or director.
- Alex graduated from the EMBA degree program in August 2012.
- On September 2, 2012, Alex was hired as vice president of finance of Driveit Financial Services, performing duties substantially similar to his previous managerial role in corporate finance and accounting.
Procedural Posture:
- Alex and Elizabeth Kopaigora (petitioners) timely filed their 2011 Federal income tax return, claiming an $18,879 deduction for Alex's EMBA degree expenses as unreimbursed employee expenses.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent) determined a deficiency of $2,111 in petitioners' Federal income tax for the 2011 tax year, challenging the deductibility of these expenses.
- Petitioners filed a petition with the United States Tax Court challenging the Commissioner's determination.
- The case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code, which designates it as a 'small tax case' where the decision is not reviewable by any other court and the opinion is not treated as precedent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a taxpayer's executive master of business administration (EMBA) degree expenses qualify as deductible unreimbursed business expenses under Internal Revenue Code section 162 when the taxpayer was temporarily unemployed but actively seeking employment in the same field, and the degree primarily improved existing skills rather than qualifying the taxpayer for a new trade or business?
Opinions:
Majority - Nega, Judge
Yes, Alex Kopaigora's EMBA degree expenses generally qualify as deductible unreimbursed business expenses under Internal Revenue Code section 162 because he was carrying on his trade or business and the degree did not qualify him for a new one. The court found that Alex was a well-established finance and accounting business manager at Marriott LAX when he enrolled in the EMBA program. His temporary unemployment following termination did not prevent him from being considered 'carrying on' his trade or business, as he actively sought to continue in the same corporate finance and accounting field, consistent with precedent like Furner v. Commissioner. The EMBA courses, focused on management and finance, maintained and improved skills appropriate to his existing role, rather than qualifying him for a 'new trade or business.' Applying a 'commonsense approach' from Glenn v. Commissioner, the court determined his post-degree qualifications for new tasks or activities were not significantly different, and his subsequent employment as a vice president of finance involved duties substantially similar to his previous position. However, the court sustained the Commissioner's determination regarding $4,332 of education expenses, as petitioners conceded these were paid in 2010 and not the 2011 tax year at issue.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the 'carrying on a trade or business' requirement under IRC §162 for education expenses, specifically that temporary unemployment does not preclude deductibility if the taxpayer was actively pursuing continuation in the same line of work. It also reinforces the 'new trade or business' test, emphasizing a functional comparison of duties rather than mere title changes or a general degree type like an EMBA. Although this is a Summary Opinion and not precedential under IRC §7463(b), it provides valuable insight into the Tax Court's application of established regulations and common law principles in similar factual scenarios, particularly for professionals seeking advanced degrees in their existing fields.
