- 32 -
Texas. See supra sec. II.D.4. During that period, Norman was in
a travel status with respect to petitioner when he traveled away
from Dallas in pursuit of petitioner’s business. The analyses
show per diem payments to Norman for various dates (e.g., “11/3 –
11/5; 11/29 – 12/17) through April 18, 1994. We accept that
Norman was traveling on behalf of petitioner, away from Dallas,
on all dates through April 18, 1994, for which per diem payments
are shown (all as reflected in the analyses and supporting
documents).7 Per diem payments for such travel are deductible by
petitioner. After April 18, 1994, Dallas no longer was Norman’s
principal post of duty, see section III.D.4., and Norman has
failed to prove that his principal post of duty was other than
Washington, D.C., where he worked for 177 days during the 1994
tax year. See id. The analyses show per diem payments to Norman
for every day from April 19, 1994, through the end of the 1994
tax year (the remainder of the year). Petitioner has failed to
prove that Norman was in a travel status on every day during the
remainder of the year. Nevertheless, the analyses and certain
supporting documents allow us to determine that petitioner was
outside of the Washington, D.C., area on petitioner’s business on
7 Petitioner’s payment of per diem to Norman and
petitioner’s reimbursement of his miscellaneous travel expenses
is evidenced by copies of canceled checks issued to Norman, which
contain notations that they represent expense reimbursements.
Also, respondent did not object to the amount of the per diem
($35 a day). Therefore, we do not consider the amount to be in
issue.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011