Raymond J. and Maria V. Zbylut - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         
               Petitioners deducted on their 2002 return as unreimbursed              
          employee expenses the following amounts for “auto mileage and               
          possibly other travel-related costs back and forth to his Union             
          Hall looking for work”:                                                     
               16 Days x  $72 Honolulu <Oahu>, Hawaii       = 1,152.                  
               12 Days x $205 San Francisco, California     = 2,460.                  
          Although petitioners’ statement attached to their return                    
          attributes the deductions to auto mileage and other travel-                 
          related expenses, the rate petitioners used to calculate the                
          expenses for Honolulu was the applicable M&IE rate for June 2002.           
          The rate they used to calculate expenses for San Francisco was              
          the applicable maximum per diem rate, which includes standard               
          deemed substantiated expense allowances for lodging, meals, and             
          incidental expenses.  Respondent argues that petitioners are not            
          entitled to the expense deductions claimed for petitioner’s                 
          travels to San Francisco and Honolulu for several reasons.                  
               In respondent’s opening brief, respondent argues that                  
          Nebraska was petitioner’s personal residence and advances the               
          argument that expenses for travel to San Francisco and Honolulu             
          were nondeductible commuting expenses to and from his places of             
          work.  Respondent argues that petitioners should not be allowed             
          deductions for these commuting expenses because they were free to           
          choose the location of their personal residence and chose to live           
          far from petitioner’s various places of work.  Respondent’s                 
          implicit argument is that petitioner’s union halls, rather than             






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008