- 2 - After concessions,1 the sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to deduct expenses for travel and meals under section 162(a)(2).2 The parties have stipulated some facts, which we incorporate herein by this reference. When he filed his petition, petitioner resided in Crystal City, Missouri. Background During the years at issue, petitioner owned and operated a long-haul, over-the-road truck. He was on the road about 360 days in 1998 and about 345 days in 1999. In 1998, petitioner spent 5 days at a house in Green Bay, Wisconsin (the Green Bay house), which petitioner’s partner owned. The major expense petitioner incurred at the Green Bay 1 On brief, respondent has conceded the sec. 6654 additions to tax. In his amended petition, petitioner alleged that respondent’s determination of tax set forth in the notice of deficiency was erroneous because: (1) The deficiencies in petitioner’s income taxes were not determined by an authorized delegate of respondent; (2) the notice of deficiency was not sent by an authorized delegate of respondent; (3) respondent’s deficiency determination was arbitrary; (4) petitioner’s self- employment tax liability and corresponding deduction should not have been increased for the tax years at issue; and (5) petitioner was entitled to claim an earned income credit for the years at issue. Petitioner did not pursue these issues at trial or on brief; therefore, we deem petitioner to have abandoned them. See Burbage v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 546, 547 n. 2 (1984), affd. 774 F.2d 644 (4th Cir. 1985). 2 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011