The Tax Court's Verdict: Attorney's Racing Activities as Non-Deductible Advertising Costs

In the world of tax law, nuances in business expenditures can often lead to complex cases and decisions with far-reaching implications. The Tax Court recently tackled one such case, ruling that a lawyer's expenses related to his car racing endeavors were not deductible advertising costs. In this article, we will delve into the details of the case involving James Avery, an attorney who sought to write off racing expenses as advertising costs. The court's decision sheds light on the criteria for deductions under Section 162(a) and the burden of substantiation placed on taxpayers.

The Case of James Avery

James Avery, a lawyer who started his own legal practice in Colorado in the late 1980s, initially specialized in personal injury law. Over the years, Avery relocated multiple times, including a stint in Indiana. It was during his time in Indiana in 2005 that he began attending auto shows after investing in classic cars, believing they could help him network with potential clients. However, he found the car exhibitions somewhat unexciting and, in 2008, transitioned into car racing as a driver, purchasing two Dodge Vipers for this purpose. On one of these cars, he attached a decal bearing his law firm's name, claiming it served as an advertisement for his practice. Avery's racing activities were primarily concentrated between 2008 and 2010.

Avery asserted that he believed his involvement in racing might introduce him to individuals who could advance his legal career, but he could only identify two such instances. One involved seeking advice from a Pizza Hut franchisee during a race-related event in Indiana, and the other pertained to a chance meeting with a surgeon at an auto exhibition (not a race) who later served as an expert witness in one of Avery's Denver-based cases.

Avery, unfortunately, failed to file his income tax returns on time for the years 2008 and 2009, leading to the IRS creating substitute returns for those years. Subsequently, he submitted overdue returns for 2010 and 2011 in 2013. His 2012 return was filed on schedule, but the IRS generated a substitute return for 2013 as well. The IRS issued deficiency notices for the years 2008, 2009, and 2013 and subsequently for the years 2010 through 2012 after examining his returns.

Avery eventually submitted late returns for 2008, 2009, and 2013 and amended returns for 2010 through 2012. On these returns, he deducted advertising costs totaling $355,000 for the relevant years. However, the IRS rejected all racing-related expenses, allowing only $51,634 as duly documented. Avery subsequently filed a petition with the Tax Court, seeking a ruling on various matters, including the $303,366 in disputed advertising expenses, which included expenses associated with auto racing.

Analyzing the Issues

In this case, the core issue revolved around whether the expenses claimed by Avery satisfied the requirements outlined in Section 162(a) for being ordinary and necessary business expenditures. Section 162(a) allows for the deduction of all regular and necessary costs incurred in the course of doing any trade or business, but taxpayers bear the responsibility of proving their right to such deductions and substantiating their claimed expenses.

The court first addressed $167,027 in costs for which Avery provided no substantiation, rejecting them outright. It then considered whether the remaining $136,339 in claimed expenses met the definition of "ordinary and necessary." The court referred to established legal precedents, including Deputy v. du Pont, Welch v. Helvering, Heineman, O'Connor, Henry, and Berry, to evaluate the case.

Routine Expenses: The court cited Deputy v. du Pont, emphasizing that an expense is routine if it arises from a common or frequent occurrence in the type of business involved.

Necessary Expenses: Drawing from Welch v. Helvering and Heineman, the court emphasized that a cost qualifies as necessary if it is appropriate and helpful in carrying out a taxpayer's profit-seeking activity.

Motivation and Proximity: The court considered the taxpayer's primary motivation for incurring an expense and whether there was a reasonably proximate connection between the expense and the taxpayer's line of work. Legal decisions such as O'Connor, Henry, and Berry were cited to support this aspect.

Personal Concerns: The court made it clear that expenses driven primarily by personal concerns are not eligible for deduction, a point underscored by the case of Berry.

The Court's Verdict

After careful consideration of Avery's case, the Tax Court arrived at a decisive verdict. It determined that Avery's racing-related expenses did not meet the criteria of being necessary or typical of what an attorney would spend money on. The court categorized both his automobile collection and racing as hobbies, which Section 262 prohibits from being deducted as "personal, living, or family expenses." The court was not convinced that his racing activities in Indiana had any real synergy with his Denver-based legal practice.

The court further pointed out that if Avery truly believed in the advertising potential of his racing endeavors upon returning to Colorado in 2010, he would have either intensified or at least maintained those activities. The court also noted that the decals bearing Avery's name and law firm, while present on his racing car, were relatively small in print, falling short of the visibility offered by conventional advertising methods like billboards or newspaper ads.

Only one instance directly resulted from Avery's racing activities - a consultation on a vendor disagreement. The court found Avery's testimony unconvincing, highlighting that the prospect of future business contacts did not justify categorizing hobby expenses as deductible advertising expenses. The court concluded that Avery participated in racing primarily for personal enjoyment and not to promote his legal services, leading to the rejection of his claims.


In the complex world of tax law, the case of James Avery serves as a reminder that deductions for business expenses are not to be taken lightly. The Tax Court's ruling in this case underscores the need for taxpayers to diligently meet the requirements of Section 162(a) and substantiate their expenses. In the end, the court's decision found that Avery's racing activities did not fulfill the necessary criteria for deductibility, setting an important precedent for future cases in the field of tax law.

Related Posts
  • Business Interest Deduction: A Guide for Business Owners | Castro & Co. [2024] Read More
  • What Can You Do If You Can't Pay Your Business Taxes | Castro & Co. [2024] Read More
  • Taxes for Etsy Shop Owners | Castro & Co. [2024] Read More