- 16 -
meaning of section 162(a)(2) during peak-season Victoria/Friday
Harbor runs in 2001 and 2002 and the Friday Harbor runs in 2003.
C. Off-Peak Travel Season
Respondent, citing Stevens v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-
16, argues that petitioner is not entitled to a deduction for the
expenses incurred during the off-peak-season 6- to 7-hour
layovers in Victoria because the layovers were solely the result
of scheduling rather than petitioner’s need for sleep or rest.
However, the proper inquiry is into the nature of
petitioner’s employment and his need for sleep or rest, not
whether a layover was the result of scheduling. The factors to
consider in determining whether petitioner needed sleep or rest
include his age, his physical condition, the length of his
workday, and the importance of being alert so that he could carry
out his job’s responsibilities without fear of injury to others.
These factors are applied against the background of petitioner’s
experience in his employment and the practices and customs of
similarly situated individuals. See Williams v. Patterson, 286
F.2d at 339.
Petitioner’s background is impressive. After attending the
Merchant Marine Academy, he earned a master’s degree in marine
transportation, and he has been employed in this field for over
25 years. In the years at issue, petitioner was the director of
marine operations and senior captain for the company. His
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011