C.F.R. » Title 26 » CHAPTER I—INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY › SUBCHAPTER A—INCOME TAX › PART 1—INCOME TAXES

26 C.F.R. § 1.161-1

Allowance of deductions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 161 provides for the allowance as deductions, in computing taxable income under section 63(a), of the items specified in Part VI (section 161 and following), Subchapter B, Chapter 1 of the Code, subject to the exceptions provided in Part IX (section 261 and following), of such Subchapter B, relating to items not deductible. Double deductions are not permitted. Amounts deducted under one provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 cannot again be deducted under any other provision thereof. See also section 7852(c), relating to the taking into account, both in computing a tax under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and a tax under Chapter 1 or 2 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, of the same item of deduction.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1964–2011 · leading case: Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Comm'r, 42 T.C. 83 (Tax Ct. 1964).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Comm'r, 42 T.C. 83 (Tax Ct. 1964). · cites it 2× “However, where the change in accounting method is initiated by the petitioner, any advantage gained by it must be compensated for although under section 481(b)(4)(B), I.”
Est. of Reeves v. Comm'r, 100 T.C. 427 (Tax Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “Amounts deducted under one provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 cannot again be deducted under any other provision thereof.”
Greenway v. Comm'r, 40 T.C.M. 24 (Tax Ct. 1980). · cites it 2× “Amounts deducted under one provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 cannot again be deducted under any other provision thereof. Issue 4. Parking Fees Petitioner seeks *496 a deduction for a $60 fee which he paid in 1975 to the University of Colorado for parking while at…”
Gersten v. Comm'r, 41 T.C.M. 285 (Tax Ct. 1980). · cites it 2× “Petitioners offered no evidence to prove that the supplies and business related courses expenses deductions were not double deductions.”
Carroll v. Comm'r, 42 T.C.M. 326 (Tax Ct. 1981). · cites it 2× “Petitioner is not entitled to deduct again those same expenses under any other provision of the Internal Revenue Code.”
Wilson v. Comm'r, 2011 T.C. Summary Opinion 85 (Tax Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “("Double deductions are not permitted."). We thus conclude that petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to the deduction for car and truck expenses claimed on his Schedule C.”
Miller v. Comm'r, 34 T.C.M. 1207 (Tax Ct. 1975). · cites it 4× “, provides that: Double deductions are not permitted. Amounts deducted under one provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 cannot again be deducted under any other provision thereof.”
Woolley v. Comm'r, 52 T.C.M. 398 (Tax Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “He failed to demonstrate that he had basis in any of the damaged property.”
Gras v. Comm'r, 33 T.C.M. 1018 (Tax Ct. 1974). · cites it 2× “The parties stipulated that with the exception of the garment bag and the suit, all of the items were previously deducted as merchandise or office supply purchases. Since petitioners have already deducted the cost of the samples and supplies as ordinary and necessary business…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.