- 14 -
Respondent argues that the travel expenses at issue (21,021
of the 24,325 business miles claimed by petitioners on their
Schedule A) represent mileage Mr. Marple incurred commuting from
his home to the Mount Storm job site and thus are not deductible
under section 162. Respondent further argues that Mr. Marple is
not entitled to deduct the mileage at issue pursuant to the
exception provided in Rev. Rul. 99-7, supra, because Mr. Marple’s
employment with API on the Mount Storm job, which lasted for all
of 2002 except for a 3-week break in service, was not temporary,
nor was the Mount Storm job site, which was 32 miles from Mr.
Marple’s home by way of the most direct route, outside the
metropolitan area where Mr. Marple lived and normally worked.
Petitioners contend otherwise, pointing out that none of Mr.
Marple’s jobs through Local 100 are permanent, and arguing that,
by Mr. Marple’s calculation, he drove 51 miles to get to the
Mount Storm job site each day.
10(...continued)
job, when the job was outside the metropolitan area where the
taxpayer lived and ordinarily worked. Since Turner, we have
decided cases where the issue has been framed in terms of the
test of Rev. Rul. 190, supra. See, e.g., McCallister v.
Commissioner, 70 T.C. 505 (1978); Norwood v. Commissioner, 66
T.C. 467 (1976). Rev. Rul. 190, supra, has been modified or
clarified by the Commissioner over the years, as noted above.
For purposes of the instant case, Rev. Rul 99-7, 1999-1 C.B. 361,
applies, and the deductibility of Mr. Marple’s vehicle expenses
has been presented for decision under its provisions. Neither
party disputes the application of Rev. Rul. 99-7, supra.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007