- 24 -
employment. Petitioner testified credibly that he paid those
expenses, and respondent’s counsel never challenged that
testimony, opting to rest his case without cross-examining
petitioner or without introducing any evidence to attempt to
impeach that testimony. We disagree with respondent’s assertion
that petitioner must introduce into evidence actual receipts of
his incidental expenditures in order to deduct them. As we read
Rev. Proc. 96-28, 1996-1 C.B. 686, and its progenitors, one of
the primary purposes of those revenue procedures is to allow
taxpayers to deduct a set amount of travel expenses incurred away
from home in lieu of maintaining written records to substantiate
the actual amount. See also sec. 1.274-5T(j), Temporary Income
Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46032 (Nov. 6, 1985) (“the Commissioner
may establish a method under which a taxpayer may elect to use a
specified amount or amounts for meals while traveling in lieu of
substantiating the actual cost of meals”). We note, however,
that petitioner has introduced into evidence records which meet
the time, place, and business purpose requirements of sec. 1.274-
5T(b)(2), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6,
1985), as to his incidental expenses. Those records show
clearly: (1) The dates of petitioner’s departure for and return
from each city that he visited while away from home (the time
requirement), (2) the cities or points of travel (the place
requirement), and (3) the business nexus between his employment
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011