This thread is CLOSED. It has been discussed to the point
of repetitiousness and, in a few cases, were taking on what
I considered to be a unprofessional tone.

So there is no misunderstanding, CLOSED means everything I
see on this subject from this moment forward will be placed
in the Burn-Before-Read folder.

Dick
---
Richard D. Adams, CPA
Moderator: misc.taxes.moderated

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Jonathan Kamens wrote:

- quote -

I will so assert. Tax deductions are simply a matter of
"legislative grace," and there is no provision in the
Internal Revenue Code that makes such a broad allowance as
you suggest. (Or, if you believe that there is such a
section, would you kindly cite it?)

- quote -

That is absolutely correct, as far as it goes. However, if
the expense does not meet the tests of DEDUCTIBILITY, then
the employer must add it to the employee's compensation and
(in most cases) withhold taxes on it. If you are simply
arguing that the corporate employER in this case should be
entitled to a deduction, I agree. But that deduction is in
the form of additional TAXABLE compensation paid to the
employEE.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Rich Carreiro writes:
- quote -

We can't commit murder even if our religion says that we
must. We can't marry multiple wives even if our religion
says that we must. We can't sacrifice goats in a
residential area even if our religion says that we must
(really, there was a real case about this!). We can't abuse
our children, even if our religion says that we must. All
of these are true.

Fortunately, none of these are things which observant Jews
are obligated by their religion to perform, which means that
the statement I made above is perfectly true :-).

Seriously, you're right, of course, that there are some laws
which restrict the observance of some people's religions.
However, if a law is challenged in court on the grounds that
it restricts religious observance, the State is obligated to
show that it has a compelling interest in the restriction
and there's no way to accomplish what the law is meant to
accomplish without it.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

jik[at]kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens) writes:

- quote -

As I'm sure you know, that last clause is patently untrue,
or at least is untrue as generally as you have stated it.

There are plenty of laws and regulations were are all
required to abide by (such as having to pay our taxes :-),
regardless of how much they may conflict with our sincere
religious beliefs.

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

wrote:

- quote -

An eruv requires a _physical_ fence (even when symbolic,
there's still something). And that would just let her carry
stuff within it; she still couldn't drive home, and it's too
far to walk.

Seth

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Jonathan Kamens wrote:

- quote -

That may be so, and it sounds like the employer in this case
is fully complying with that requirement. The employer could
also meet that requirement by scheduling the work on some
day other than Friday.

But, I am simply unaware of any section of the Internal
Revenue Code that would allow a tax deduction in this
situation. If you are aware of such a code section, would
you PLEASE cite it?

The mere absence of a tax deduction is in no way interfering
with the rights of the parties to practice their religion or
to comply with other legal requirements.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Dick Adams <rdadams[at]smart.net> wrote:

- quote -

If it were merely a heritage, it would mostly be a choice
(the same as, say, nationality). As a matter of belief, it
isn't something under the voluntary control of a person.
(If you don't agree, think about making yourself believe
that 1+1=3.)

Seth

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

sethb[at]panix.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
- quote -

If a CEO has legitimate concerns for his safety that are
linked to his position as CEO, then the bodyguards are
deductible regardless of where/when he is using them. Ditto
if there are legitimate concerns about the safety of the
CEO's family and security must be engaged to protect them.

People who kidnap CEOs and/or their families to extort money
from the CEO's company don't confine their activities to
kidnapping the CEO when he's on company business.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Jonathan Kamens wrote:
- quote -

It's not intolerance that I have. My position is simple:
"What is the stronger (or strongest) prevailing origin
leading to incurring the expense?"

In this situation, I see the person's religion as the
stronger influence (over that of business operations). Why?
Let's suppose that the taxpayer was of a [different]
religion that had no such restriction. Is there still a
valid business purpose to the overnight stay? I concluded
that based on what was given, there is NO OTHER PURPOSE to
the overnight stay. Since the purpose is sourced SOLELY on
personal belief, not a business reason, it fails to qualify
under IRC 162. It's not "ordinary nor necessary" as there
would be no issue for someone else in the same position (but
of a different religion) not to reasonably travel home at
that time of day (or evening). [Other failings also
notwithstanding, as mentioned by others.] As the decision
underlying the incurrance of the expense was personal, IRC
262 kills any deduction.

People, despite their heritage, are not locked into a
particular religion. People do "convert." Sounds to me that
there IS a choice here; a purely PERSONAL one. Within the
given religion, there are even those who don't care about
such restrictions. Accomodation does not mean that the
employer is bound by the religious law of its employees. It
simply means that there must be a reasonable offering or
chance to avoid an adverse situation. Since this taxpayer
is also her own employer (as a partner), she put herself
into the situation; too bad.

It's personal, not business. => No deduction.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Jonathan Kamens wrote:
- quote -

And even then, the "outside of taxpayer's control" in and of
itself does not a legal tax deduction make.

- quote -

"Federal law" is a most general term. here we deal with tax
law, and until tax law is changed to let church law override
it, we tax professionals will continue to advise clients
just how it reads AND is intended.

Merry Christmas!

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:42:49

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"DORFMONT[at]aol.com" <DORFMONT[at]aol.com> writes:

- quote -

Can we please stop conflating the religious discussion with
the tax discussion? There is really very little point in
discussing the intricacies of Jewish law in this newsgroup.

There are all kinds of reasons, certainly not worth going
into here, why (a) extending an eruv to cover a particular
location is anything but simple and is in most cases not
practical and (b) that would not address all of the problems
with someone being that far away from their home at the
start of the Sabbath.

- quote -

As other people have explained several times, a business has
the right to determine what days and hours make the best
business sense. Unless the IRS is going to actually
question that determination, which they are unlikely to do,
it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether the
expense is deductible.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Arthur Kamlet" <kamlet[at]panix.com> wrote

- quote -

Not on topic, but if there were a valid ~business~ reason,
then a business deduction for the time the bodyguards were
used as the CEO conducted ~business~. Otherwise, the rest
is personal.

- quote -

This one is easy. Was the travel business related? Yes?
Then deduct it.

--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
taxman at negia.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb[at]panix.com> wrote

- quote -

The "ordinary and necessary" rule might get applied. Was it
necessary to charter a jet? It's not that hard a hoop to
jump through.

--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
taxman at negia.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Gary Goodman wrote:
- quote -

On the contrary, we recognize that the decision is based
WHOLLY on the taxpayer's choice of religion (and practice
thereof), and therefore has no connection whatsoever to IRC
162 which controls BUSINESS expenses.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Gary Goodman wrote:

- quote -

I believe the more important issue in this particular forum
is whether they understand TAX law.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Arthur Kamlet wrote:

- quote -

Probably depends on the "facts and circumstances." However,
I would suggest that if the bodyguard was hired primarily
because of the dictates of a "religious law," it would not
be a business deduction.

- quote -

More/less the same answer as above. Could also run afoul of
the "lavish or extravagant" restriction in IRC 162.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

She could apply to her local beit din to have her new office
included in the eruv for her local area. (Maybe this should
be posted on misc.legal.jewish) or just move her office day
to another day of the week and continue to make house calls
on Friday.

Linda Dorfmont E.A., CFP, CSA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

I can't say whether this applies to the taxpayer in the
original question, but some people would not consider
religion a personal choice or something within their
control. They were born into the religion, and as a result
are commanded by God to follow certain rules.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Arthur Kamlet <ArtKamlet[at]aol.REMOVE.com> wrote:

- quote -

If it's while he's driving his kids to school, it's
personal. If it's during a business trip to inspect his oil
wells in Kidnapistan, it's deductible.

- quote -

Business travel is deductible, personal travel isn't. You
didn't specify the purpose of the trip.

Generally, the cost of business travel is deductible; isn't
a First Class ticket deductible even when a Coach ticket
would get you there at the same time? So why wouldn't a
chartered plane be equally deductible?

Seth

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Gary Goodman wrote:
- quote -

I've seen what you may think is a "slant", but really,
religion has nothing to do with this case.

As Kamlet, who Art in Ohio, has pointed out, the facts and
circumstances (f&c) of this case do not support any
exceptions to the IRS regulations and tax law, re being away
from home overnight in order to deduct these hotel expenses.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->