- 23 -
The task of discerning petitioner's portion of each meal
expenditure is more troublesome because petitioner's testimony
regarding the number of people present at each meal is
incomplete. Further, simply knowing the number of people present
at a dinner does not necessarily provide a sufficient basis for
allocating the bill among them. Respondent allowed petitioner a
deduction for meal expenses equal to the standard allowance for
each trip. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that
petitioner purchased meals for others on the following trips:
Stipulation of Facts
Location Date Paragraph
Washington, D.C. Apr. 21-23, 1990 8
Baltimore, MD May 18-19, 1990 9
Richmond, VA Sept. 14-17, 1990 11
Washington, D.C. July 7-12, 1990 14
Knoxville, TN Nov. 23-26, 1990 18
Washington, D.C. May 10-13, 1991 23
Virginia Beach, VA June 13-15, 1991 24
Nassau, Bahamas Aug. 11-16, 1991 26
Washington, D.C. Sept. 27-29, 1991 27
Birmingham, AL May 29-31, 1991 33
In light of the evidentiary problems associated with the
allocation of meal expenses we adopt the standard allowance as a
reasonable approximation of petitioner's expenditures for his own
meals on the above listed trips. Accordingly, on trips on which
petitioner purchased meals for others, petitioner will be allowed
a deduction for meals (and banquet expenses) equal to the amount
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011