- 15 -
expenses, was much longer than normal, and he, therefore,
sustained the cost of these meals on his extended work days.
Petitioner contends that, because he was required to rest during
the course of his work day, he is entitled to a deduction for the
expenses at issue.
Section 162(a)(2) permits the deduction of traveling
expenses, including meals, while away from home in the pursuit of
a trade or business. For a taxpayer to be considered "away from
home" within the meaning of section 162(a)(2), the Supreme Court
has held that the taxpayer must be on a trip requiring sleep or
rest. See United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299 (1967). In
Barry v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1210 (1970), affd. per curiam 435
F.2d 1290 (1st Cir. 1970), this Court applied the Correll rule in
disallowing expenses for meals claimed by a taxpayer on 1-day
business trips that extended from 16 to 19 hours during which the
taxpayer rested briefly once or twice in his automobile but
always returned home without incurring an expense for lodging.
This Court held, in Barry, that the rest period required for the
deductibility of travel expenses requires a rest of sufficient
duration in time that necessitates the securing of lodging, and
that a mere pause in the daily work routine does not satisfy the
requirements of section 162(a)(2). The rationale for allowance
of the deduction in such cases is the taxpayer's significantly
higher expenses incurred by reason of the lodging. See United
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011