Marin I. and Anita J. Johnson - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         

          miscellaneous itemized deductions for 1996, claiming on that                
          return that he was entitled to deduct $7,811 of that amount after           
          taking into account the 2-percent floor of section 67.                      
          Petitioner has no receipts to support the claimed deduction of              
          $3,654.  Petitioner used the per diem substantiation method of              
          the applicable revenue procedures and ascertained the amount of             
          that deduction by using the full M&IE rate for each city to which           
          he traveled.  The $3,654 deduction related solely to the                    
          incidental expenses which petitioner paid during 1996 while                 
          working on the Falcon.                                                      
               Respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to              
          deduct the $3,784 and $3,654 amounts claimed for 1994 and 1996,             
          respectively.                                                               
                                       OPINION                                        
               We must decide whether petitioner may deduct the cost of the           
          incidental travel items which he purchased during the subject               
          years while working away from his personal residence.  Petitioner           
          argues he may.  Petitioner asserts that he incurred the costs               
          while working away from home on business.  Petitioner asserts               
          that the applicable revenue procedures mentioned herein dispense            
          with the need to substantiate the amounts of those costs in order           
          to deduct them.  Respondent argues that petitioner may not deduct           
          those costs.  Respondent asserts primarily that petitioner had no           
          tax home.  Respondent asserts secondly that petitioner did not              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011