James Albert and Beverly Alderman - Page 20

                                       - 19 -                                         
          the 40- and 50-mile figures given on brief imply either that this           
          leg of the journey required 10 rather than 7 miles or that                  
          petitioners’ statement that quoted figures use “the lesser                  
          mileage” in the case of alternate routes is in fact inaccurate.             
               The situation with respect to the number of days of                    
          pertinent travel is similar.  At trial Mr. Alderman testified               
          that he “did not miss a day during the year 2000” and was seeking           
          a deduction for the “182-day school year”.  However, exhibits               
          introduced by petitioners include a copy of a leave request                 
          granting Mr. Alderman professional leave for March 16 and 17,               
          2000, and a copy of a certificate of attendance and participation           
          at a teaching conference held in Mobile, Alabama, during March 16           
          through 18, 2000.  On brief petitioners then calculate their                
          alleged deductible expenditures based on 94 days, apparently                
          computed as the total of one-half of a 180-day school year plus             
          one-half of 8 parent conference or Parent Teacher Organization              
          meeting days.  There is no explanation whatsoever for the                   
          dramatic reduction in alleged workdays.  There also has been no             
          showing that Mrs. Alderman worked every day that Mr. Alderman did           
          and that their schedules and hours invariably coincided in the              
          manner generally described at trial and on brief.7                          

               7 The Court has considered a variety of possible factual               
          scenarios in an attempt to reconcile petitioners’ statements on             
          brief, including their acknowledgment that a portion of their               
          travel constitutes a nondeductible “normal commute”, with the               
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011