- 14 -
Supreme Court in United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299 (1967),
observed that the rule contemplated a sleep or rest period of
sufficient duration that would ordinarily be related to a
significant increase in expenses. The Supreme Court acknowledged
the rule provided a definite, fair, and ascertainable standard.
Id. at 302-303.
The Tax Court in Barry v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1210 (1970),
affd. 435 F.2d 1290 (1st Cir. 1970), indicated that the rest
period contemplated by the sleep or rest rule is of the type
illustrated by Williams and normally involves a rest of
sufficient duration to cause an increase in expenses. A brief
rest period which “anyone can, at any time, without special
arrangement and without special expense, take in his own
automobile or office” does not qualify. Id. at 1213. The Court
in Barry disallowed expenses for meals claimed by a taxpayer on
1-day business trips that lasted between 16 and 19 hours during
which the taxpayer rested briefly once or twice in his
automobile.
If the nature of petitioner’s employment was such that when
away from home, during released time, it was reasonable for him
to need and to obtain sleep or rest in order to meet the
exigencies or business demands of his employment, his expenses
for this purpose would be traveling expenses under section
162(a)(2). See Williams v. Patterson, supra at 340; Rev. Rul.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011