- 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