Corey L. Wheir - Page 14

                                       - 13 -                                         

          petitioner's home at Wisconsin Rapids.  Respondent cited no                 
          authority to support this argument.  Respondent's second                    
          alternative is that petitioner's normal work area should be based           
          on an "economic area" defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis            
          of the U.S. Department of Commerce.  The breadth of this area as            
          it affected petitioner was considerably larger than the 35-mile             
          radius from Wisconsin Rapids that petitioner used as the outer              
          limits of his work area.  Rev. Rul. 99-7, supra, provides no                
          alternatives to the term "metropolitan area" as that term is used           
          in the ruling.  The Court cannot ignore Rev. Rul. 99-7, supra, by           
          adopting alternatives that, in effect, negate the ruling.                   
          Respondent presented no evidence to show that the 35-mile radius            
          petitioner used was unreasonable.  The Court, therefore, rejects            
          the alternatives suggested by respondent, accepts petitioner's              
          35-mile radius as the limit of the metropolitan area in which               
          petitioner lived, and holds that petitioner is entitled to                  
          deductions for the claimed travel and transportation expenses.              
          Petitioner, therefore, is sustained on this issue.5                         
               With respect to the second issue, involving expenses                   
          incurred in petitioner's bodybuilding activity, respondent                  

               5    As noted earlier, as to those job sites where                     
          petitioner stayed overnight because of distance and his extended            
          work shifts, which resulted in his incurring expenses for sleep             
          or rest, the deductibility of those expenses is governed by sec.            
          162(a)(2).  Respondent presented no argument addressing sec.                
          162(a)(2).                                                                  





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