- 8 -
his meal and incidental expenses provided for in section 4.03 of
Rev. Proc. 93-50. However, respondent disallowed $271 in meal
expenses relating to 17 days during 1994 in which petitioner
stayed overnight in Knoxville. Respondent contends that
petitioner’s home in Tazewell was in close proximity to
Knoxville, and, therefore, petitioner was not “away from home”
within the meaning of section 162 when he stayed overnight in
Knoxville.
Petitioner argues that the meal expenses he incurred in
Knoxville were incurred “away from home” within the meaning of
section 162. Petitioner’s position is that, on several occasions
during 1994, Knox Cartage scheduled petitioner to haul new cargo
out of Knoxville immediately upon his return from other hauling
trips. However, on those occasions, petitioner was required by
Federal regulations to get 8 hours sleep before he could haul
another load. Rather than returning to his home in Tazewell and
losing 2 or more hours of sleep time making the round-trip
commute, petitioner slept for 8 hours in Knoxville, which
satisfied his rest requirements, and then took the new cargo. If
petitioner had not been able to begin hauling the new cargo as
quickly as he did, the cargo would have been contracted to
another driver, which would have been the result had he driven
back to his home in Tazewell.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011