Sharon v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
66 T.C. 515 (1976), aff'd, 591 F.2d 1273 (1978) (per curiam)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
To be licensed to practice law in New York, Joel Sharon (plaintiff) had to graduate from college and law school and pass the New York bar examination (exam). Sharon incurred costs for college and law school, as well as a bar-exam study course. After graduating and passing the bar, Sharon practiced law in New York. However, Sharon later moved to California, where he found employment as a lawyer with the regional office of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS did not require Sharon to obtain a California law license, but Sharon thought that studying for the California bar exam would help him in his IRS work. Sharon paid for a California bar-exam study course, passed the exam, and was admitted to the California bar. Sharon subsequently was admitted to the bar of the California federal courts. Sharon deducted the costs of his college, law school, and bar-exam study courses as tax-deductible education expenses under § 162 of the federal tax code and the amortization-deduction provisions of § 167 of the tax code. The commissioner of internal revenue (commissioner) (defendant) determined that Sharon’s expenses were non-deductible personal expenses, and disallowed Sharon’s deduction. Sharon petitioned the tax court for a redetermination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simpson, J.)
Dissent (Irwin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 780,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.