Marin I. and Anita J. Johnson - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         

                    Held:  P’s tax home is the situs of his residence.                
                    Held, further, P’s testimony, by itself, supports                 
               a finding that P paid incidental travel expenses while                 
               employed away from his tax home.                                       
                    Held, further, P’s use of the M&IE rates is                       
               limited to the portions thereof that are attributable                  
               to incidental expense.                                                 


               Steven R. Stolar and Kristina S. Keller, for petitioners.              
               Ric D. Hulshoff, for respondent.                                       


               LARO, Judge:  Respondent determined deficiencies of $945 and           
          $1,022 in petitioners’ 1994 and 1996 Federal income taxes,                  
          respectively.  The deficiencies stem from respondent’s                      
          disallowance of $3,784 and $3,654 that Marin I. Johnson                     
          (petitioner) claimed for the respective years as miscellaneous              
          itemized deductions for travel expenses connected to his                    
          employment as a merchant seaman.  Petitioner ascertained the                
          amount of those deductions by using the full Federal per diem               
          rates for meal and incidental expense (M&IE rates) referenced in            
          Rev. Proc. 96-28, 1996-1 C.B. 686, and its progenitors.  See,               
          e.g., id. sec. 4.03, 1996-1 C.B. at 688.  Petitioner’s actual               
          expenses consisted solely of incidental expenses; while he was at           
          work, his employer furnished him with lodging and meals at no               
          charge.                                                                     
               We must decide whether petitioner may deduct the claimed               
          amounts.  We hold he may not.  We hold that petitioner’s use of             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011