Edward C. Lee and Mary C. Lee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Good Law
723 F.2d 1424·53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 552·1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 26340
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 17, 198481-7845California1,208 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wright, J.

In this appeal we consider whether the Tax Court held correctly that Edward Lee’s educational expenses were not deductible under I.R.C. § 162. We agree with the Tax Court’s conclusion that helicopter flight training was not required to maintain or improve the skills required in Lee’s employment as a commercial airline pilot.

I

FACTS

Lee, a commercial pilot for Delta Airlines, incurred educational expenses for helicopter flight training in 1972 and 1973. Thereafter, a notation was placed on his commercial pilot’s license stating that he was a qualified commercial helicopter pilot. He has not flown helicopters commercially.

During the years in question, he flew DC 9’s and Convair 880’s for Delta. It provided the training required for flying its aircraft and did not require him to take the helicopter training.

The Commissioner determined that the expense of the helicopter lessons was a nondeductible personal expense under I.R.C. § 262. The Tax Court concurred, saying that the flight training did not maintain or improve the skills required for Lee’s employment, and that “the helicopter flight training was part of a program of study leading to Mr. Lee’s qualification in a new…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.