- 31 -
($6,440), while she was “in a travel status”, related to her
relocation to Florida. Petitioner’s policy was to pay a per diem
amount for meals rather than reimbursing an employee’s actual
meal expenses, if the employee so elected. As set forth supra in
section II.D.2, section 162(a)(2) permits a deduction for
traveling expenses (including amounts expended for meals) while
away from home in the pursuit of business. Aline’s duties for
petitioner are vaguely described at best. Her marriage to Norman
was in trouble in April 1994, and, we believe, she moved to
Florida for personal reasons. Petitioner has failed to prove
that the expenses incident to her relocation to Florida were
incurred in pursuit of its business, rather than pursuant to
Aline’s relocation to Florida for personal reasons. On that
basis, we allow no deduction.
C. Per Diems – Norman Duquette
We allow a deduction of $3,409 with respect to the $10,010
claimed as business meals for “Per diems – Norman Duquette”.
Petitioner claims that it paid Norman per diem of $35 a day for
286 days ($10,010), while he was “in a travel status”. We
believe that, to a limited extent, such per diem payments were
legitimate traveling expenses (for meals) incurred by petitioner
with respect to travel by Norman while away from home in pursuit
of the business of petitioner. During the 1994 tax year, through
April 18, 1994, Norman’s principal post of duty was in Dallas,
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011