Kenneth W. Frische - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         

          should be allowed whether I was away from home or not because I             
          was out there taking care of business.  I was in my car all day             
          long."                                                                      
               Section 162(a)(2) allows 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 away-from-home cases is the taxpayer's                  
          significantly higher expenses incurred by reason of the lodging.            
          See United States v. Correll, supra at 304-305.  On the other               
          hand, where no lodging expense is incurred, the meal expenses               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011