Daniel P. and Glenna J. Marple - Page 16




                                       - 15 -                                         
              We recognize that all of Mr. Marple’s jobs through Local 100            
         are not permanent positions and that Mr. Marple understood at the            
         time he took the Mount Storm job that his employment with API                
         would not be permanent in nature.  The impermanence of                       
         construction work, however, does not resolve the issue of whether            
         Mr. Marple’s employment with API was temporary for the purpose of            
         deducting business mileage.  See Commissioner v. Peurifoy, 254               
         F.2d 483, 486 (4th Cir. 1957), revg. 27 T.C. 149 (1956), affd.               
         per curiam 358 U.S. 59 (1958); Kasun v. United States, 671 F.2d              
         1059, 1061-1063 (7th Cir. 1982).  Moreover, prior jobs of short              
         duration are not evidence that the job at issue is temporary.                
         McCallister v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 505, 509-510 (1978).                    
              We find it unnecessary, however, to resolve the question of             
         whether Mr. Marple’s employment with API on the Mount Storm job              
         was temporary or indefinite because we find that the Mount Storm             
         job site was not outside the metropolitan area where Mr. Marple              
         lived and normally worked.  See Harris v. Commissioner, T.C.                 
         Memo. 1980-56, affd. in part and remanded in part without                    
         published opinion 679 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1982).11                            



               11   In Harris v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-56, affd. in           
          part and remanded in part without published opinion 679 F.2d 898            
          (9th Cir. 1982), this Court found that the taxpayer, who relied             
          on Rev. Rul. 190, supra, to support the deductibility of his                
          transportation expenses, had not established that the work sites            
          at issue were outside the general area of his principal or                  
                                                             (continued...)           






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007