Corey L. Wheir - Page 12

                                       - 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