- 33 -
were not the primary reasons for the trips. See Masat v.
Commissioner, 784 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1986), affg. on this issue
T.C. Memo. 1984-313.
The mere fact that petitioners own business or investment
property in a certain location does not mean that any expense
incurred in traveling to that location is automatically
deductible. See Lawler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-26.
4. Employee Use
Petitioner’s computations of business use of the Toyota
automobile in order to allocate depreciation among his activities
include mileage from using his car in his capacity as an employee
of the IRS, for which he was reimbursed. Petitioner’s
reconstruction for 1993 shows 2,264 “official” miles driven, but
he provided substantiation for only 105 miles driven. He offered
no evidence of his “official” miles driven, if any, in 1994.
Under section 280F(d)(3), employee use of listed property
shall not be treated as use in a trade or business for determining
the amount of depreciation allowable to the employee unless the
use is for the convenience of the employer and is required as a
condition of employment. See also sec. 1.280F-6T(a), Temporary
Income Tax Regs., 49 Fed. Reg. 42703 (Oct. 24, 1984). No evidence
was offered on this point, and we therefore cannot find that
petitioner was required to use his car as a condition of his
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011