- 12 -
that Rev. Proc. 94-77, 1994-2 C.B. 825, and Rev. Proc. 96-28,
1996-1 C.B. 686, were invalid “insofar as they operate to
characterize the Beech Trucking per diem payments as being solely
for meals and incidental expenses (and not for lodging) and to
apply the section 274(n) limitation to nonmeal expenses that were
covered by the per diem”. Beech Trucking Co. v. Commissioner,
supra at 438.
The analysis and reasoning in Beech Trucking Co. apply to
this case. The doctrine of stare decisis is important to this
and other Federal courts. Hesselink v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 94,
99-100 (1991). Stare decisis is the preferred course because it
promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development
of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and
contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial
process. Id. at 99.
The key difference between Beech Trucking Co. and this case
is that here, petitioners presented evidence at trial as to the
estimated, nonmeal travel expenses incurred by Continental’s
drivers. In Beech Trucking Co., the taxpayer “offered no
independent substantiation of the amounts of lodging or
incidental expenses that the Beech Trucking drivers might have
incurred, or otherwise established any reasonable basis for
allocating the per diem payments to meals, incidentals, and
lodging expenses incurred by the drivers.” Beech Trucking Co. v.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011