The message you're trying to access has been removed from the boards.
The most likely reason for this is that the message violated our Fool's Rules about appropriate content.
Either that or it was swallowed up by intergalactic space beasts from the planet Xeenu.
Please check out The Motley Fool's Terms and Conditions of Service.
Give thought to the subject of what you'd say if an auditor challenged the deduction. Your wife has worked as a cook (baker) before, quite recently, in fact. She planned to do so again when she took the class. In fact, she did do so again. The class was helpful in advancing her in her profession. Therefore, it should be deductible. She can surely argue that the classes were helpful in the job she had--she wasn't contemplating a career change. If she's a cook and takes classes in auto mechanics, that wouldn't be deductible unless you are REALLY creative. Suppose the time frames were more condensed. Your wife is working as a cook, takes a week off for a crash course in some specialized cooking techniques, which she will use in her job, taking vacation time for the course. Is that deductible? Of course. If as a result of taking the class or obtaining certification as a result of the class, she is able to command a higher salary, that would make it easier. The difference in time frame shouldn't matter. If a teacher uses summer vacation to accumulate credits toward a master's degree, there isn't any question that the college continuing education classes are deductible. In her situation I wouldn't mind arguing with an auditor. Best wishes, Chris
Give thought to the subject of what you'd say if an auditor challenged the deduction. Good response by Chris but I think I would like to take the auditors side just for the sake of argument. Auditors questions might be:Is continuing employment at the ski resort dependant upon taking the classes? It sounds like probably not.Will completion of the classes qualify her for a known available promotion at the place of employment? Doubtful (based on your description of circumstance). In fact at the time classes were taken she didn't even have a job at the resort.On the other hand the nature of IRS regulations are such that pushing the envelope should not cost you anything and may give you a gain. If you are prepared for the audit I would say go for it.Bob
"Is continuing employment at the ski resort dependant upon taking the classes? It sounds like probably not." She can argue back that she hadn't had the classes and got laid off. After she had taken them, she successfully competed with other applicants and was rehired for the next season. "Will completion of the classes qualify her for a known available promotion at the place of employment? Doubtful (based on your description of circumstance). In fact at the time classes were taken she didn't even have a job at the resort." Right, and she also hadn't completed the classes. I bet the auditor would rather spend his limited time on a different case. I'd take 'em on! Chris
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |