¶1dissenting: The expenses incurred by petitioner had a dual objective. On the one hand, the attainment of the doctorate was necessary in order to qualify for appointment to the permanent staff, and I assume, arguendo, that if such were the only purpose, the expenses would not be deductible any more than educational expenses generally that are incurred by one who is preparing for his profession or calling in life. On the other hand, petitioner’s work toward his doctorate had a much more immediate obj ective. He held a temporary appointment as a tutor and it was made clear to him that it was necessary for him to make substantial progress toward the doctorate in order to retain his position as tutor. In short, the expenses incurred by petitioner were necessary in order to earn the very income which the Commissioner seeks to tax. I find it very difficult to see why such expenses do not qualify as “ordinary and necessary” business expenses. Petitioner’s position is supported by Hill v. Commissioner, 181 F. 2d 906 (C. A. 4), which is not satisfactorily distinguished in the majority Opinion.
27 T.C. 624
Marlor v. Commissioner
Decided December 26, 1956
United States Tax Court · decided 1956-12-26
Expenses of Education -- College Tutor Required to Obtain Ph. D. as Condition of Employment and Advancement in Grade. -- The petitioner was employed by a college as a tutor on a temporary or probational basis for 1 year. The college requirements as a condition of reemployment were that such an employee would have to make substantial progress toward the attainment of a doctoral degree to the end that he would qualify for a higher teaching rank.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“The expenses incurred by petitioner had a dual objective. On the one hand, the attainment of the doctorate was necessary in order to qualify for appointment to the permanent staff, and I assume, arguendo, that if such were the only purpose, the expenses would not be deductible any more than educational expenses generally that are incurred by one who is preparing for his profession or calling in life. * * *”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Devereaux v. Commissioner
Relies on Hill v. Commissioner
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decision will be entered for the respondent · Decided 1956-12-26
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 1971
6 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →