Raymond J. and Maria V. Zbylut - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          (2000); 41 C.F.R. sec. 301-11.17 (2002).  None of the vessels on            
          which petitioner worked were common carriers, and he did not                
          receive meals from a hotel or motel.  Additionally, the Federal             
          Travel Regulations require that a Federal employee’s M&IE rate be           
          adjusted for meals provided by the Government by deducting                  
          appropriate amounts for each meal provided.  Johnson v.                     
          Commissioner, supra at 227-228; Federal Travel Regulations, 41              
          C.F.R. sec. 301-11.18 (2000); 41 C.F.R. sec. 301-11.18 (2002).              
          Because, as petitioners acknowledge, the revenue procedures                 
          regarding M&IE rate deductions for non-Government employees are             
          to be applied according to the Federal Travel Regulations for               
          Federal employees, the regulations require that petitioner                  
          decrease the M&IE rate deduction otherwise allowable to account             
          for meals provided by petitioner’s employers.                               
               Petitioners also argue that this issue is novel to the                 
          Court.  We disagree.  In Johnson v. Commissioner, supra, the                
          taxpayer, also a merchant seaman, deducted the full Federal M&IE            
          rates on his return, even though all of his meals were provided             
          to him free of charge by his employer.  We held that, because the           
          taxpayer’s actual expenses consisted solely of incidental                   
          expenses, his use of the M&IE rates to calculate his deductions             
          for business expenses due to travel away from home was limited to           
          the incidental portion of those rates.  Id. at 210-211.  The                
          taxpayer in that case established that he had incurred incidental           







Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008