Raymond J. and Maria V. Zbylut - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
          expenses during his travel away from home and was allowed to use            
          the incidental portion of the M&IE rates to substantiate those              
          expenses in lieu of providing actual receipts.  The purpose of              
          the Federal per diem rates is to ease the burden of                         
          substantiating travel expenses away from home, not to eliminate             
          the requirement that those expenses be incurred before they can             
          be claimed as deductions from income.  Although petitioners                 
          contend that the Court has not yet addressed this issue, we                 
          explicitly stated in Johnson v. Commissioner, supra at 227:  “We            
          do not read the revenue procedures to allow a taxpayer to use the           
          full M&IE rates when he or she incurs only incidental expenses.”            
               Respondent concedes that petitioners are entitled to a                 
          miscellaneous itemized incidental expenses deduction for 2002               
          equal to the per diem rate then applicable for each day                     
          petitioner was traveling away from home for business.  Respondent           
          performed those calculations according to methods established by            
          relevant revenue procedures.                                                
               Petitioners may, as respondent has conceded, deduct the                
          incidental portion of the M&IE per diem rate for days that                  
          petitioner worked away from home for which they have                        
          substantiated the time, place, and business purpose of                      
          petitioner’s travel.  Johnson v. Commissioner, supra at 225; see            
          also Westling v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-289.  In                     
          accordance with the applicable revenue procedures, respondent               







Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008