- 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