Daniela Aldea - Page 9




                                        - 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