Michael L. and Ann Burski - Page 3




                                         -2-                                          
          other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent             
          for any other case.                                                         
               The trial was conducted by Special Trial Judge Carleton D.             
          Powell, who died after the case was submitted.  The parties have            
          declined the opportunity for a new trial or for supplementation             
          of the record and have expressly consented to the reassignment of           
          the case for opinion and decision.                                          
               Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal             
          income taxes of $10,755 for 2001 and $5,546 for 2002.  Following            
          concessions,2 we must decide whether petitioners may deduct                 
          travel expenses under section 162(a)(2).3  This requires that we            
          decide whether Michael L. Burski (petitioner) was “away from                
          home” when he incurred the expenses.                                        
                                     Background                                       
               Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so                
          found.  We incorporate by reference the parties’ stipulation of             
          facts and accompanying exhibits.                                            




               2Respondent concedes that, for the taxable years 2001 and              
          2002, Michael L. Burski (petitioner) was an independent                     
          contractor.  Petitioner concedes that income he received from the           
          Institute for Defense Analyses is included in gross receipts                
          reported on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business (Sole                  
          Proprietorship), and that his Schedule C income is subject to               
          self-employment tax.  Petitioners concede that they had                     
          additional capital gain of $5,000 and dividends of $83 in 2002.             
               3The only other issues remaining are computational.                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008