- 8 -
the claimed expenses. Respondent asserts thirdly that petitioner
may not use the subject revenue procedures to ascertain the
amount of his deductions because, respondent asserts, those
revenue procedures do not apply when only incidental expenses are
incurred.
We agree with petitioner that he is entitled to the claimed
deductions, but we disagree with him as to the amount of those
deductions. We hold that petitioner’s deductions are limited to
the incidental expense portion of the applicable M&IE rates. See
Johnson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. (2000). In Johnson, we
considered and rejected each argument advanced by respondent
here. We held that the taxpayer, a merchant seaman similar to
petitioner, could deduct the cost of his incidental travel items
even though he could not establish the cost of those items by way
of written documentation. We held that the taxpayer could
establish those costs by using the incidental expense portion of
the applicable Federal per diem rates for meals and incidental
expenses referenced in section 4.03 of Rev. Proc. 96-28, 1996-1
C.B. at 688, and its progenitors. We held that the taxpayer
could deduct those amounts because his records met as to those
costs the time, place, and business purpose requirements of
section 1.274-5T(b)(2), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg.
46014 (Nov. 6, 1985). The taxpayer’s records showed clearly:
(1) The dates of his departure and return from each city that he
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011