- 26 -
Regs.17 This conclusion is consistent with the position taken by
Beech Trucking on its tax returns for the years at issue and with
the implicit premise of petitioner’s prayer for relief.18
2. Validity of the Revenue Procedures
Petitioner argues that the Revenue Procedures are invalid
insofar as they operate (in section 4.02) to characterize the
Beech Trucking per diem payments as being solely for M&IE and (in
section 6.05) to apply the section 274(n) limitations to the full
amount of the per diem payments. Petitioner does not argue that
the Revenue Procedures are otherwise invalid; to the contrary,
petitioner relies on section 4.01 of the Revenue Procedures for
deemed substantiation of the drivers’ travel expenses and on that
part of section 6.05 of the Revenue Procedures that would permit
Beech Trucking (absent the provision in section 4.02 which deems
the per diem payments to be solely for M&IE) to treat 60 percent
of the per diem payments as being reimbursements of the drivers’
lodging expenses. In effect, then, petitioner seeks to rely
selectively on certain aspects of the Revenue Procedures that
17 This case does not present, and we do not reach, any
issue as to the proper tax treatment to ATS of the amounts that
ATS paid to the Beech Trucking drivers. The record is silent as
to how ATS might have treated the payments to the Beech Trucking
drivers for tax purposes.
18 As previously indicated, in this litigation petitioner
has not argued that Beech Trucking is entitled to deduct a
greater amount of the per diem payments than the 80 percent it
claimed on its tax returns, on the basis of its application of
the sec. 274(n) limitations.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011