- 8 -
traveling expenses she incurred on her trips to Ukiah are
deductible under section 162(a)(2) to the extent that they can be
substantiated.
The expenses of daily commuting, unlike traveling expenses,
are not deductible under section 162(a)(2) because they do not
meet the sleep or rest requirement of United States v. Correll,
supra. See Sanders v. Commissioner, 439 F.2d 296, 298 (9th Cir.
1971), affg. 52 T.C. 964 (1969). Rather, commuting expenses are
deductible, if at all, under the “ordinary and necessary
expenses” provision of section 162(a). Sanders v. Commissioner,
supra. Generally, the expenses of daily commuting are not
deductible because they constitute personal expenses under
section 262. Fausner v. Commissioner, 413 U.S. 838 (1973); sec.
1.262-1(b)(5), Income Tax Regs. An exception exists for
commuting expenses to some jobs that are temporary, as opposed to
indefinite, in duration.2 See, e.g., Frederick v. United States,
603 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir. 1979).
In cases involving a variety of circumstances, this Court
and other courts have established and applied the rule that
expenses incurred in commuting to a job site are deductible if
work at the job site is temporary, but not if it is for an
indefinite period. See Ellwein v. United States, 778 F.2d 506,
511 (8th Cir. 1985); Dahood v. United States, 747 F.2d 46, 48
2 As discussed above, the temporary or indefinite test serves a
similar function in the sec. 162(a)(2) context. Frederick v.
United States, 603 F.2d 1292, 1295 (8th Cir. 1979). The
underlying premise in both situations is the idea that a
taxpayer’s choice of residence is circumscribed by his expected
term of employment. Id.
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