- 13 -
supported only by petitioner’s testimony that his office at the
university was 5 to 10 miles from his home. We would not allow
any deduction for transportation expenses due to this lack of
substantiation. Petitioner’s use of his vehicle to drive from
his home to the university was simply a cost of commuting, a
nondeductible expense. See sec. 1.262-1(b)(5), Income Tax Regs.
Most of the excess unreimbursed employee and other
miscellaneous expenses deduction petitioner claimed pertains to
his home office. The remainder of the deduction consists of
expenses incurred for subscriptions to scholarly journals, which
respondent conceded at trial are deductible, the cost of meals
petitioner shared with colleagues while discussing work-related
matters, and the cost of trading stocks petitioner held in his
Roth IRA account.7
All of the claimed expenses for meals were for meals
consumed in College Station, where petitioner worked and resided.
Therefore, they were not traveling expenses potentially allowable
under section 162(a)(2) as expenses incurred while away from home
in pursuit of a trade or business. Furthermore, a deduction for
meals and entertainment expenses, like the deduction for travel
7In his notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed
petitioner’s claimed $1,550 other miscellaneous expenses
deduction (apparently relating to gambling losses) and a $1,950
deduction for a capital loss. Petitioner did not dispute these
items in his pleadings or at trial, and we therefore treat these
items as conceded by petitioner. See Rule 34(b).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007