-14-
respondent did not allow any deduction were incurred for ordinary
and necessary business purposes in the course of petitioner’s
carrying on a trade or business as either an independent
contractor or an employee of IDA.
Although section 162(a) is not mentioned in the notice, its
provisions are implicit in respondent’s explanation that
petitioner failed to establish that he incurred or paid the
disallowed amounts for ordinary and necessary business purposes
and that any amount qualifies as a business expense as specified
under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The notice
alerted petitioner to respondent’s challenge to the bona fides of
the disallowed amounts as travel expenses. The factual bases and
rationale required to establish that the amounts petitioner paid
for driving between Lancaster and Alexandria and for lodging and
meals while working in Alexandria were ordinary and necessary
business expenses incurred in his business of providing services
to IDA as an independent contractor are identical to the factual
bases and rationale necessary to establish that they were
ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred in the business
of providing services to IDA as an employee. In either case
petitioner must show that (1) he was away from home when he
incurred the expense, (2) the expense is reasonable and
necessary, and (3) the expense was incurred in pursuit of a trade
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008