A Tennessee accountant diligently studies for and passes the CPA exam. His day-to-day work remains virtually identical: same clients, same responsibilities, same desk. Yet when tax season arrives, those CPA exam costs aren’t deductible. Why? Because becoming a CPA qualified him for a “new trade or business,” even though he had no intention of changing careers, and his actual work didn’t change at all.
This real case from Glenn v. Commissioner perfectly captures the absurd reality facing today’s professionals: the very credentials and education that make you more valuable in your current role often become non-deductible under tax law. Jeremy Wells dissects this paradox in his latest Tax in Action podcast episode, where he reveals how our tax system has created a knowledge economy trap that punishes professional advancement.
While tax law theoretically supports professional development through education deductions, it systematically penalizes advanced degrees, professional certifications, and career-expanding skills by classifying them as “personal investments” rather than business necessities. This leaves tax professionals and their clients caught in a regulatory maze where maintaining your current skill level is rewarded, while pursuing excellence faces potential penalties.
The Knowledge Economy Reality Check
“For quite a while now, most of the U.S. economy has been based on not the ability of people to produce things or do things with their hands, but rather the value of what they’re able to accomplish with their minds,” Wells explains.
The financial sector, insurance industry, and professional services all depend on knowledge work. Yet our tax system treats developing those valuable mental capabilities as personal indulgence rather than business necessity.
The existing education tax breaks demonstrate this disconnect clearly. The 529 plans that parents use to save for college offer no federal tax deduction for contributions, though some states do allow deductions. Student loan interest deductions under IRC Section 221 phase out based on income, effectively penalizing successful professionals. Education credits like the American Opportunity Credit and Lifetime Learning Credit focus on traditional college expenses, not the specialized training that drives value in today’s economy.
As Wells notes, these benefits can be rather limited. The problem isn’t that tax law ignores education entirely. It’s that the benefits don’t match the reality of professional development needs.
This brings us to the question Wells hears constantly from business owners: “Can I pay for my own education and use my business to do that?” The answer reveals just how complex this landscape has become.
Educational Assistance Programs: Promise and Pitfalls
The IRC Section 127 educational assistance programs initially appear to offer hope. These programs allow employers to provide up to $5,250 annually in tax-free educational benefits, and the definition of qualifying education is surprisingly broad.
Wells explains that under these programs, “education includes any form of instruction or training that improves or develops the capabilities of an individual.” Even better, “education is not limited to courses that are job-related or part of a degree program.” This could potentially cover everything from technical training to wellness courses that make employees “better people, more productive, happier.”
The program can cover tuition and fees, books, supplies, and equipment, and even student loan repayments. The definition of “employee” is also broad, including “self-employed individuals or what we might refer to as independent contractors.”
But here’s where the system reveals its bias against small business owners.
The fatal flaw lies in the anti-discrimination rules. Any business owner with more than a 5% stake in their company cannot claim more than 5% of the total benefits paid out by the program. As Wells explains, “If you are self-employed, and you want to use this program for yourself, and you have other employees, you, as a more than 5% owner of that business, cannot claim more than 5% of the benefits paid out by that program.”
The math is brutal. If you want to claim the full $5,250 benefit for your own education, your business would need to pay out at least $105,000 in total educational benefits to all participants. For most small businesses, this makes the program impractical.
The discrimination rules add another layer of complexity. Programs cannot favor highly compensated employees: those earning over $160,000 in 2025, those with 5% or greater ownership stakes, or those in the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.
Wells notes that for many small business owners, this means they either “don’t do this program at all” or “just exclude themselves from the program.” And there’s another catch. Unlike cafeteria plans under IRC Section 125, you can’t offer employees a choice between the education benefit and additional cash compensation.
The program also has strict substantiation requirements. Employees must provide documented proof that expenses qualify, and they can’t double-dip by receiving reimbursement and then claiming education credits on their personal returns. Wells warns this is particularly important because “it’s entirely possible that that employee would then turn around and report those educational costs on their tax return and claim an education credit.”
When Business Owners Go Direct: The Section 162 Minefield
When educational assistance programs fail small business owners, they turn to direct business deductions under IRC Section 162. This is where things get really tricky.
Treasury Regulation 1.162-5 allows education deductions if the education “maintains or improves required skills” or “meets legal or employment requirements to maintain his or her present salary, status or job.” This generally includes professional continuing education and refresher courses.
The regulation also covers education to meet an employer’s minimum requirements “if the requirements are imposed for a bona fide business purpose.” Wells gives the example of requiring employees to take spreadsheet training because “we use a lot of spreadsheets in my business, and my employees need to be able to effectively use those spreadsheets.”
Even travel for education can be deductible if “the travel is directly related to the duties of the individual in employment” and “the major portion of that business needs to include activities directly maintaining or improving required skills.” However, taxpayers must allocate personal activities during the trip separately.
But here’s where the Tax Court draws its line in the sand.
The Tax Court’s War on Professional Growth
Treasury Regulation 1.162-5(b) establishes two types of education that are explicitly non-deductible, and the Tax Court has interpreted these restrictions aggressively.
First, taxpayers cannot deduct education that meets “necessary minimum educational requirements.” Second, and far more damaging, education that “will lead to qualifying an individual for a new trade or business” is automatically disqualified.
The logic, Wells explains, is that these expenses are “essentially personal or perhaps capital expenditures” where “you’re investing in yourself.” The Tax Court views this as an “inseparable aggregate of personal and capital expenditures” rather than ordinary business expenses.
The cases reveal a pattern of hostility toward professional advancement that spans decades. In the Glenn case, the accountant couldn’t deduct CPA exam costs even though his work remained identical. The Tax Court ruled that becoming a CPA granted “certain rights, responsibilities, privileges that weren’t there before.”
The pattern repeats across professions. In Robinson v. Commissioner (1982), a licensed practical nurse completed an RN program while maintaining virtually identical duties. The Tax Court ruled against her because registered nurses have different capabilities than LPNs.
Even IRS employees get caught in this trap. In Weiler v. Commissioner (1970) and Taubman v. Commissioner (1973), IRS revenue agents couldn’t deduct law school costs despite arguing that legal training enhanced their current tax research abilities.
Law degrees face particularly harsh treatment. Wells notes that “law degrees generally qualify for a new trade or business” regardless of the taxpayer’s current profession or intentions.
The MBA Split Decision
The MBA cases show just how arbitrary these determinations can become. In 2016’s Gora v. Commissioner, the Tax Court allowed a financial controller’s executive MBA costs because his continued work in “management and finance” didn’t represent new qualifications.
Just one year later, in Kray v. Commissioner (2017), a computer design consultant’s identical executive MBA was ruled non-deductible because it qualified her for “new tasks” like “financial analysis, managing a business, managing and overseeing a staff.”
Wells warns that “an MBA may or may not qualify” as deductible, making this area particularly risky for taxpayers.
The Practical Reality for Tax Professionals
This creates impossible situations for tax professionals advising clients. The Tax Court’s standard isn’t whether you actually change careers or even want different opportunities. As Wells emphasizes, the keyword is “potentially”—education that could potentially qualify you for different work is probably non-deductible.
The system forces taxpayers to choose between pursuing valuable education that enhances their business capabilities but facing potential audit challenges, or limiting themselves to narrow, maintenance-level training that clearly fits within existing job requirements.
Wells notes that taxpayers must be “established in a trade or business” before education expenses become deductible, and the Tax Court has ruled that “a relatively short or temporary tenure in a job before starting the education doesn’t establish the taxpayer in the trade or business.”
Even holding a position doesn’t guarantee you’ve met minimum educational requirements. University teaching assistants, for example, haven’t met the minimum requirements for permanent faculty positions until they actually have their PhD.
Navigating the Knowledge Economy Trap
Our tax system rewards professional stagnation while punishing the learning that drives economic value. Tax professionals’ continuing education to maintain existing credentials? Fully deductible. Are the same professionals pursuing advanced degrees to better serve clients? Potentially non-deductible because it might qualify them for “new” responsibilities.
For tax professionals, this creates compliance challenges and ethical questions. Do we advise clients toward valuable education that faces potential tax challenges, or recommend they limit learning to “safe” options that maintain the status quo?
Wells warns that employers and self-employed individuals “really need to be careful when they’re trying to deduct those work-related education costs.” The Tax Court “can be pretty strict about education either meeting those minimum requirements for a profession or even more often than that, qualifying the recipient of that education for a new trade or business.”
Understanding these limitations is about recognizing how tax policy shapes professional development decisions across the entire economy. The knowledge economy demands continuous adaptation and skill development, but our tax code remains anchored to an industrial mindset that views capability expansion as personal indulgence rather than business necessity.
Listen to the full episode of the Tax in Action podcast for Wells’ complete analysis and detailed guidance to help clients make informed decisions about their professional development investments. Don’t let the knowledge economy trap catch you or your clients unprepared.