Quote Quoting ransomedbyfire
View Post

What exactly, according to the IRS defines a "new trade or business"?

Just how broadly does the IRS see this?
I agree with flyingron that a computer programmer learning a new computer programming language is not education that would qualify you for a new trade or business. But as you asked exactly how the IRS defines it, I’ll answer that question. The applicable Treasury regulation on this states:

(3) Qualification for new trade or business. (i) The second category of nondeductible educational expenses within the scope of subparagraph (1) of this paragraph are expenditures made by an individual for education which is part of a program of study being pursued by him which will lead to qualifying him in a new trade or business. In the case of an employee, a change of duties does not constitute a new trade or business if the new duties involve the same general type of work as is involved in the individual's present employment. For this purpose, all teaching and related duties shall be considered to involve the same general type of work. The following are examples of changes in duties which do not constitute new trades or businesses:
(a) Elementary to secondary school classroom teacher.
(b) Classroom teacher in one subject (such as mathematics) to classroom teacher in another subject (such as science).
(c) Classroom teacher to guidance counselor.
(d) Classroom teacher to principal.

(ii) The application of this subparagraph to individuals other than teachers may be illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1. A, a self-employed individual practicing a profession other than law, for example, engineering, accounting, etc., attends law school at night and after completing his law school studies receives a bachelor of laws degree. The expenditures made by A in attending law school are nondeductible because this course of study qualifies him for a new trade or business.

Example 2. Assume the same facts as in example (1) except that A has the status of an employee rather than a self-employed individual, and that his employer requires him to obtain a bachelor of laws degree. A intends to continue practicing his nonlegal profession as an employee of such employer. Nevertheless, the expenditures made by A in attending law school are not deductible since this course of study qualifies him for a new trade or business.

Example 3. B, a general practitioner of medicine, takes a 2–week course reviewing new developments in several specialized fields of medicine. B's expenses for the course are deductible because the course maintains or improves skills required by him in his trade or business and does not qualify him for a new trade or business.

Example 4. C, while engaged in the private practice of psychiatry, undertakes a program of study and training at an accredited psychoanalytic institute which will lead to qualifying him to practice psychoanalysis. C's expenditures for such study and training are deductible because the study and training maintains or improves skills required by him in his trade or business and does not qualify him for a new trade or business.

Treas. Reg. § 1.162-5(b)(3). A good summary of the rule is provided by the U.S. Tax Court, which explains:

Education expenses, however, are not deductible if they are “made by an individual for education which is part of a program of study being pursued by him which will lead to qualifying him in a new trade or business.” Sec. 1.162–5(b)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs. This is so even if the courses meet the express requirements of the employer. Jungreis v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 581, 591, 1970 WL 2256 (1970). It is immaterial whether the individual undertaking the education intends to or does in fact become employed in a new trade or business. Bodley v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1357, 1360, 1971 WL 2538 (1971).

Whether the education qualifies a taxpayer for a new trade or business depends upon the tasks and activities which he was qualified to perform before the education and those which he is qualified to perform afterwards. Weiszmann v. Commissioner, 52 T .C. 1106, 1110, 1969 WL 1739 (1969), affd. per curiam 443 F.2d 29 (9th Cir.1971). We have repeatedly disallowed education expenses where the education qualifies the taxpayer to perform significantly different tasks and activities. Browne v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 723, 726, 1980 WL 4566 (1980); Glenn v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 270, 275, 1974 WL 2620 (1974). Further, the taxpayer's subjective purpose in pursuing the education is irrelevant, and the question of deductibility is not satisfied by a showing that the taxpayer did not in fact carry on or did not intend to carry on a new trade or business. Burnstein v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 492, 495, 1976 WL 3650 (1976).

Warren v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. Memo. 1494 (2003).