- 2 -
R denied the deductions, determining that P was
not “away from home” within the meaning under sec.
162(a)(2), I.R.C., because his voyages did not require
him to obtain sleep or rest. Additionally, R argues
that if P is considered “away from home” and is
entitled to deduct his M&IE, P was required to prorate
and reduce those expenses for a partial day of travel
away from home and was required to further reduce these
expenses by 50 percent pursuant to sec. 274(n), I.R.C.
Held: Petitioner was “away from home” for
purposes under sec. 162(a)(2), I.R.C., and may deduct
M&IE incurred while obtaining sleep or rest during the
6-hour layovers.
Held, further, P may deduct the allowable Federal
M&IE rate for a full day of travel.
Held, further, P is required to reduce his
allowable M&IE by 50 percent pursuant to sec. 274(n),
I.R.C.
Gregory L. White, for petitioners.
Lisa M. Oshiro, for respondent.
HAINES, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioners’ Federal income taxes for 2001, 2002, and 2003 (years
at issue) of $3,011, $3,119, and 3,250, respectively.1
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and Rule references are to
the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts are
rounded to the nearest dollar.
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