- 21 -
petitioners seek to rely selectively on certain aspects of the
revenue procedures that work to Continental’s benefit while
seeking to avoid the associated conditions that the revenue
procedures impose.
For the reasons stated in Beech Trucking Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 443-447, we find that section 4.02(5) of
the revenue procedures is valid. We reemphasize the point stated
in Beech Trucking Co. that the revenue procedures are elective
provisions that provide deemed substantiation in lieu of actual
substantiation of the drivers’ precise travel expenses. The
first paragraph of the revenue procedures states: “Use of a
method described in this revenue procedure is not mandatory and a
taxpayer may use actual allowable expenses if the taxpayer
maintains adequate records or other sufficient evidence for
proper substantiation.” Rev. Proc. 96-64, sec. 1, 1996-2 C.B. at
427.
In Beech Trucking Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 449-450, we
stated:
As pronouncements of general applicability, the
Revenue Procedures cannot be expected to mirror
perfectly the manifold circumstances of all taxpayers
and their traveling employees or of any particular
taxpayer’s traveling employees. As elective procedures
meant to mitigate what might otherwise be onerous
substantiation burdens for payors of per diem
allowances, the Revenue Procedures accomplish, we
believe, at least rough justice. Giving due regard to
the highly detailed nature of the statutory and
regulatory scheme involved here, to the specialized
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011