- 34 -
related to a significant increase in petitioner’s expenses. See
Barry v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1210 (1970) (consulting management
engineer who made 16 to 19-hour business trips during which he
generally rested once or twice briefly in his automobile was not
away from home within the meaning of section 162(a)(2)).
Accordingly, petitioner has failed to establish that the claimed
expenses were incurred on travel away from home, within the
meaning of section 162(a)(2).
Because petitioner has not adequately substantiated the
time, place, and business purpose of his travel, and has failed
to establish that his travel was away from home within the
meaning of section 162(a)(2), we also reject petitioner’s
contention that he is entitled to deductions for the cost of
meals and incidentals based on the applicable Federal meal and
incidental expense (M&IE) per diem rate for each day he traveled
“out of town on business”.17
17 Sec. 1.274-5T(j), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed.
Reg. 46032 (Nov. 6, 1985), grants the Commissioner the authority
to establish a method under which a taxpayer may elect to use a
specified amount for meals and incidentals paid or incurred while
traveling away from home in lieu of substantiating the actual
costs (per diem substantiation method). For the taxable years at
issue, Commissioner established that method through Rev. Proc.
89-67, 1989-2 C.B. 795 (Rev. Proc. 89-67), amplified, modified,
and clarified by Rev. Proc. 90-60, 1990-2 C.B. 651 (Rev. Proc.
90-60). Although use of the Federal meal and incidental expense
(M&IE) rate does eliminate some of the substantiation
requirements of sec. 274 (essentially, the cost element), the
taxpayer is not relieved of substantiating the time, place, and
business purpose of the travel. See sec. 1.274-5T(j), Temporary
Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46032 (Nov. 6, 1985); Rev. Proc.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011