- 33 -
From the record herein, it appears that United and other
airlines, not respondent, initially sought what some might regard
as an additional inconsistency in the treatment of the per diem
allowances. Respondent’s audit of the per diem allowances within
the airline industry began as employment tax audits of travel
expenses. In the context of those employment tax audits (and
while still contesting any employment tax adjustments and likely
only as a protective measure against the possibility that the
employment tax adjustments might be sustained), United and other
airlines raised the issue via claims for refund as to the
deductibility, for corporate income tax purposes, of the
unsubstantiated and excess per diem allowances relating to the
overnight trips and of the full per diem allowances relating to
the day trips.
In the instant income tax controversy and in the majority
opinion, it is simply not appropriate to comment negatively on
respondent’s position in the pending employment tax litigation
with United.
As stated, the inconsistencies that we should be focusing on
and addressing herein are the many factual inconsistencies
between United’s treatment of the per diem allowances as travel
expenses for all purposes other than belatedly for its corporate
Federal income tax purposes.
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