- 37 -
142(a).29 Having relied exclusively upon the deemed
substantiation methods provided in the Revenue Procedures,
petitioner has offered no independent substantiation of the
amounts of lodging or incidental expenses that the Beech Trucking
drivers might have incurred, or otherwise established any
reasonable basis for allocating the per diem payments to meals,
incidentals, and lodging expenses incurred by the drivers.30
Accordingly, petitioner has failed to show that respondent’s
determination was in error. Cf. United States v. St. Louis-S.F.
Ry., 537 F.2d 312 (8th Cir. 1976) (taxpayer failed to rebut
Commissioner’s valuation of reusable rail as determined on the
basis of an elective method provided by a revenue procedure);
Kasey v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1642, 1650 (1970) (although an
automobile allowance of 10 cents per mile under an elective
29 In certain circumstances, if the taxpayer introduces
credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to
ascertaining the proper tax liability, sec. 7491 places the
burden of proof on the Commissioner. See sec. 7491(a); Rule
142(a)(2). Sec. 7491 is effective with respect to court
proceedings arising in connection with examinations commencing
after July 22, 1998. See Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3001(c)(2), 112
Stat. 685, 726. Here, respondent’s examinations of Beech
Trucking’s 1995 and 1996 Federal income tax returns commenced
before July 23, 1998. Accordingly, sec. 7491 has no application
to this case.
30 In particular, the record does not establish the number
of days per trip that the drivers would normally pay for separate
lodging or for incidentals such as showers, laundry, local
transportation, or overnight parking. As previously noted, it
appears that at least some of the trips for which Beech Trucking
paid per diem allowances involved no overnight travel.
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