- 9 -
incurred by the taxpayer do not add to the taxpayer's business
expenses because such expenses result from the sort of rest that
anyone can, at any time, without special arrangement and without
special expense, take in his own automobile or office. See Barry
v. Commissioner, supra at 1213; see also Siragusa v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-68, affd. without published opinion
659 F.2d 1062 (2d Cir. 1981); Strohmaier v. Commissioner, 113
T.C. 106, 115 (1999).
Petitioner argued that he always claimed meals as a
deduction on his income tax returns and that, in 1987, while he
was a process server in San Francisco, California, his tax
returns for 1985 and 1986 were audited, and his meal expenses
were allowed as deductions. He also was audited for his 1990,
1991, and 1992 tax years where the same issue was raised. In
this audit, petitioner settled his case for $1,500, even though
respondent initially claimed he owed a deficiency of $5,000.
Petitioner did not offer any documentary evidence with respect to
either audit; consequently, the Court is unable to ascertain what
issues were involved or the basis upon which the expenses were
allowed. It appears that, in both audits, petitioner settled at
the administrative level, and no court proceedings were ever
pursued. Even if petitioner's expenses were allowed in prior
years under the same factual circumstances of this case, it is
well established that respondent is not estopped by an erroneous
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011