- 15 -
75-170, 1975-1 C.B. 60. However, the released time must be of a
sufficient duration that it would ordinarily be related to a
significant increase in expenses. See United States v. Correll,
supra.
B. Peak Travel Season
Respondent argues that petitioners are not entitled to a
deduction for the expenses incurred in the brief layovers during
peak travel season because the layovers were insufficient in
duration to require sleep or rest. In 2001 and 2002, during
peak-season, petitioner’s layovers in Victoria and Friday Harbor
never exceeded an hour, and he did not produce evidence showing
he rested during that time. Petitioner also did not show he
rested during the 5-hour layover in Friday Harbor during peak-
season in 2003. Instead, petitioner testified that during this
layover he was operating the ferryboat. Even though petitioner
testified he did sleep or rest while another captain took command
of the ferryboat, he did not produce evidence showing the rest
period was part of a layover (released time) or was of sufficient
duration that it caused him to incur a significant increase in
expenses.
As to the peak-season runs, petitioner’s case is
indistinguishable from Barry v. Commissioner, supra. Therefore,
the Court finds petitioner was not away from home within the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011