- 9 -
traveling away from home4 and is factually distinguishable from
petitioner’s situation. Finally, petitioner points to Rev. Rul.
94-47, 1994-2 C.B. at 19, as support for her position, but the
relevant portion of the revenue ruling supports respondent’s
position: “A taxpayer may deduct daily transportation expenses
incurred in going between the taxpayer’s residence and a
temporary work location outside the metropolitan area where the
taxpayer lives and normally works.”
Respondent denied petitioner’s deduction for transportation
expenses from her residence to her temporary work locations
because petitioner does not ordinarily work in the metropolitan
area in which she lives. Respondent’s denial is consistent with
his position in relevant revenue rulings. Respondent has not
conceded that the temporary nature of a job in and of itself is a
sufficient basis for transportation expenses to be deductible.
Petitioner has not established any business reason for
living in Yuba City; her decision to live there was entirely
personal. Cf. Tucker v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 783, 785-788
(1971). The record does not indicate that petitioner ever worked
in, had the prospect of work in, or had any other business tie to
Yuba City. The union hall where petitioner received her job
assignments was in Sacramento, which is south of Yuba City, and
4 Travel away from home under sec. 162(a)(2) requires that
the taxpayer either remain away overnight or for a period
requiring sleep or rest. See United States v. Correll, 389 U.S.
299 (1967).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011