- 11 -
Metropolitan area as defined by the United States Census
Bureau. Therefore, the primary issue of concern is where
the petitioner normally works. The government's primary
position is that the whole State of Wisconsin would be
deemed to be the petitioner's normal work area (commuting
area) and any job site outside Wisconsin would be deemed
non-commuting.
The Court disagrees with that construction or interpretation
of Rev. Rul. 99-7, supra. Nowhere in Rev. Rul. 99-7, supra, is
there a definition of "metropolitan area", nor is there any
statement in the revenue ruling that the meaning of "metropolitan
area" is an area designated as such by the U.S. Bureau of the
Census. Moreover, respondent has cited no legal authority
adopting such a construction of "metropolitan area".
Additionally, in the Court's view, such a meaning as respondent
urges could lead to unfair and illogical results. For example, a
boilermaker who happens to live in a Bureau of the Census-
designated metropolitan area would be allowed a deduction for
transportation expenses to any job site outside that metropolitan
area; yet, a taxpayer such as petitioner who does not live in an
area so designated would not be entitled to deduct the same
expenses. Such a position does not establish a level playing
field for taxpayers.4
4 It is evident that Rev. Rul. 99-7, 1999-1 C.B. 361,
applies to daily transportation expenses under sec. 162(a) and
does not address travel expenses incurred away from home when
sleep or rest is involved under sec. 162(a)(2). Moreover,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011