- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011