- 7 -
In the present case, petitioner’s expenses incurred in
traveling to Bakersfield and Ukiah required an overnight stay.
Those expenses are deductible, if at all, as traveling expenses
under section 162(a)(2). Since petitioner’s traveling expenses
incurred with respect to her work activity in Bakersfield are not
at issue, we need only decide whether the expenses petitioner
incurred in traveling to Ukiah are deductible. Petitioner worked
at six facilities in five cities during 1997. At the time she
was assigned to work at the facility in Ukiah in June 1997, she
had already worked 9 weeks in Novato, 1 week in Napa, and 11
weeks at two facilities in Bakersfield between January and June
of 1997. Her work at Ukiah lasted 18 weeks until she was
transferred to Yuba City where she worked during the remaining 10
weeks of 1997. At the time of each assignment, petitioner was
assured that it would be temporary and that soon she would be
reassigned to the facility in Stockton.
It is clear that petitioner’s work at the facility in Ukiah,
as well as at the other facilities where she worked in 1997, was
temporary, rather than indefinite. Petitioner stayed overnight
in Ukiah during the week when she worked there and returned to
her apartment in Stockton only on weekends. Accordingly, the
1(...continued)
temporary work location in the context of commuting expenses as
“any location at which the taxpayer performs services on an
irregular or short-term (i.e., generally a matter of days or
weeks) basis”. In Rev. Rul. 99-7, 1999-1 C.B. 361, released
after the year in issue, the Commissioner reconsidered the
definition of temporary work and replaced the description in Rev.
Rul. 94-47, supra, with a 1-year standard like that set forth in
Rev. Rul. 93-86, 1993-2 C.B. 71.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011