- 10 -
personal, reasons. This exception permits taxpayers to
deduct commuting expenses to a job that is temporary,
as opposed to indefinite, in duration. The exception
has been deemed necessary because “it is not reasonable
to expect people to move to a distant location when a
job is foreseeably of limited duration.” Implicit in
this exception is the requirement that the taxpayer
commute to a worksite distant from his or her
residence. Without such a requirement, the absurd
result would obtain of permitting a taxpayer, who
commuted to a succession of temporary jobs, to deduct
commuting expenses, no matter how close these jobs were
to his residence. [Emphasis added; citations omitted.]
See also Ellwein v. United States, supra at 512 (holding that a
taxpayer can deduct commuting expenses to a temporary job site if
it is outside the area of the taxpayer’s regular abode).
Respondent argues that petitioner’s temporary travel to work
sites distant from her home in Stockton should be disallowed
under the so-called “two-prong test” of Rev. Rul. 94-47, 1994-2
C.B. 18. In that ruling, largely devoted to respondent’s
explanation of his reasons for refusing to follow this Court’s
opinion in Walker v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 537 (1993),
respondent stated: “A taxpayer may deduct daily transportation
expenses incurred in going between the taxpayer’s residence and a
temporary work location outside the metropolitan area where the
taxpayer lives and normally works.”
Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Rev. Rul. 94-
47, 1994-2 C.B. at 19 because of the peculiar circumstances of
this case. As we have found, petitioner’s employment in issue
was temporary. Plainly it was distant from her home in Stockton.
For years, including a portion of 1996, petitioner also had been
employed in Stockton. Starting in 1996, at least partly because
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