- 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