Jim L. Westling - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         

          Area        Number   Reported                                               
          of           Of       M&IE     Incidental                                   
          Travel        Days      Rate      Expenses                                  
          Juneau, Alaska     103      $80        $8,240                               
          Gustavus, Alaska    68       62         4,216                               
          Sitka, Alaska       56       58         3,248                               
          Ketchikan, Alaska   19       70         1,330                               
          Petersburg, Alaska  14       62           868                               
          Wrangell, Alaska     4       70           280                               
          Yakutat, Alaska      4             58           232                         
          Total           268                          18,414                         
               In total, petitioner reported $18,714 of miscellaneous                 
          itemized deductions for 1996, and he claimed on his 1996 return             
          that he was entitled to deduct $16,956 of that amount after                 
          taking into account the 2-percent floor of section 67.                      
          Respondent determined that petitioner could not deduct any of the           
          $18,414.                                                                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               We must decide whether petitioner may deduct the cost of the           
          incidental travel items which he purchased during the subject               
          year while working away from his home.  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 dispense with the need to substantiate the               
          amount 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 prove that he actually incurred            






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011