- 5 -
location outside the metropolitan area where the taxpayer
normally lives and works. Petitioner lived in Pleasant Hill,
California, and until a change in his work location, worked in
nearby Concord, California. His new work location in Colma,
California, was outside of the metropolitan area of his residence
and his Concord work location. Respondent contends that
petitioner has not shown that his position at Colma was
temporary. Respondent alternatively contends, that if
petitioner’s position is found to be temporary, that petitioner
has not sufficiently substantiated his mileage.
Petitioner’s transfer to the Colma location was temporary in
nature. Petitioner was unable to work with the general manager
at his Concord work location. The companywide personnel manager
advised petitioner that the Concord general manager would be
leaving soon and that petitioner could temporarily work at the
Colma dealership until the general manager left. The Colma
location presented a substantial daily commute for petitioner.
It was expected that petitioner would work at the Colma location
for a few months and then return to Concord. Petitioner worked
at the Colma location for 4 months until the Concord general
manager left the Concord location. Petitioner was not allowed to
return to the Concord location and terminated his employment.
Petitioner’s situation is similar to those described in
Mazzotta v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1971-227. In that case a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011