Drury v. Commissioner
| Decision Date | 29 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 10218-75 |
| Parties | Robert E. Drury v. Commissioner. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
Robert E. Drury, pro se, 4017 Main St., Eggertsville, N.Y.W. Robert Abramitis, for the respondent.
Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion
Respondent determined a deficiency of $276.96 in petitioner's 1972 Federal income tax. The issues are whether petitioner, a university research associate, is entitled to employee business expense deductions in respect of (1) the cost of printing a scientific article and (2) the cost of mailing copies of a scientific publication containing one of his articles to members of the scientific community.
The stipulation of facts filed by the parties, together with the exhibits attached thereto, is incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioner resided in Eggertsville, New York, at the time of filing his petition herein. He timely filed his 1972 Federal income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service Center, Andover, Massachusetts.
From July, 1967, until June, 1972, petitioner was employed as a research associate at the New York Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva, New York (hereinafter "Geneva Station"), a division of the New State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, a statutory college of the State University, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. He had no teaching responsibilities.
While at the Geneva Station, petitioner was responsible for laboratory research concerning nucleic acid and protein metabolism in seed dormancy and germination in the field of plant physiology. Petitioner was expected to prepare manuscripts concerning his research pursuits and, in the normal course, to secure publication of the same in scientific journals. Publication of scientific articles was important both in terms of filling his present job responsibilities and in terms of advancement to a senior research associate position or further to the professorial career ladder. From 1967 through 1972, twelve articles either authored or coauthored by petitioner were published in scientific journals. Articles accepted for publication by scientific journals are normally printed without any cost to the author.
As a result of an article by petitioner published in 1969 and the response thereto, petitioner developed a lengthy manuscript on the role of calculus in the understanding of plant physiology. He submitted this piece for publication to the same journal in which his 1969 article had appeared, but it was rejected because it was critical of the scientific methodology espoused by one of the reviewers who was considered an authority in the field. Petitioner refined his thoughts and rewrote and added to the manuscript several times. He submitted the piece for publication several more times, but it was similarly rejected.
Because petitioner recognized that his job responsibilities included the dissemination of his research findings and because he could not secure publication of his manuscript in a scientific journal, he decided to finance the printing of the same as a scientific monograph titled "Plant Physiology in Wonderland and the Discovery of Calculus." Petitioner first approached a private printer in or about April, 1971. The monograph was printed in October, 1971. In connection with such printing, petitioner incurred the following costs which he paid in 1972:
Printing 1,000 copies ........ $1,285.00
4 cuts ....................... 42.70
Author's alterations ......... 44.85
10 copies bound .............. 39.50
_________
Total cost ............... $1,412.05
The Geneva Station has its own publication called SEARCH, which carried an article by petitioner, "Understanding Plant Physiology and Other Branches of Mathematics" in the February, 1972, issue. During 1972, petitioner spent $45.60 to mail copies of this issue of SEARCH to foreign members of the American Society of Plant Physiologists. As a general rule, the Geneva Station assumes the expense of mailing copies of SEARCH at the author's request.
OpinionWe note at the outset several aspects of the instant case which narrow considerably the focus of the principal issue before us, namely, whether petitioner's expenditures for printing his scientific monograph constitute a deductible business expense. There is no question that the monograph had substantive scientific merit and that it bore directly on the fabric of the research work for which petitioner was employed. Additionally, we are not confronted with the troublesome problem of an expense which has both business (section 162) and personal (section 262) overtones such as is so often involved in research-related travel (compare, e.g., Brooks v. Commissioner 60-1 USTC ¶ 9190, 274 F. 2d 96 (9th Cir. 1959), revg. Dec. 23,138 30 T.C. 1087 (1958); Davis v. Commissioner Dec. 25,478, 38 T.C. 175 (1962); Cardozo v. Commissioner Dec. 18,417, 17 T.C. 3 (1951); Rev. Rul. 63-275, 1963-2 C.B. 85); or educational expenses which merely improve one's skills in an existing trade or business as against preparing for entry or reentry into a trade or business, or qualifying for a new business (compare, e.g., O'Donnell v. Commissioner Dec. 32,767, 62 T.C. 781 (1974), affd. without published opinion 519 F. 2d 1406 (7th Cir. 1975); Ford v. Commissioner Dec. 30,986, 56 T.C. 1300 (1971), affd. per curiam 73-2 USTC ¶ 9798 487 F. 2d 1025 (9th Cir. 1973)). See also Wolfman, "Professors And The `Ordinary and Necessary' Business Expense," 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1089 (1964). Finally, we are not asked to consider the question whether petitioner's expenditures were capital in nature so as to preclude their current deductibility. Compare Welch v. Helvering 3 USTC ¶...
To continue reading
Request your trial