Johnson v. Commissioner

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

SCOTT, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's income tax for the calendar year 1977 in the amount of $ 1,674. The issues for decision are (1) the amounts petitioner is entitled to deduct as moving expenses, miscellaneous deductions and employee business expenses for the year 1977; and (2) what amount did petitioner pay to his former wife as alimony in 1977. ¹

*744 FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioner, who resided in Birmingham, Alabama at the time of the filing of his petition in this case, filed a joint Federal income tax return for the calendar year 1977 with his wife, Linda F. Johnson. During the entire year 1977, petitioner was a bus driver for Greyhound Lines, Inc. During the first part of the year, he was stationed in New Orleans. However, his post of duty was transferred to Birmingham, Alabama during the year and, because of this transfer, he moved himself and his family from New Orleans to Birmingham. On September 15, 1977, petitioner was temporarily assigned to drive a bus with a starting destination of Montgomery, Alabama and he was on this temporary assignment for the remainder of the year. Because he was attending classes at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, petitioner did not obtain a room in Montgomery but rather drove from his home in Birmingham each day to commence his run from Montgomery, and, if his run concluded on that day, drove back to Birmingham in the evening. If his run extended over a period of more than one day, he would spend the night at the designated rest stopover, drive the bus the next day back to Montgomery*745 and return by automobile from Montgomery to Birmingham. There was no bus service from Birmingham to Montgomery and return which it was feasible for petitioner to use to meet the time requirements of his driving schedule starting in Montgomery.

On many of petitioner's runs, when he was stationed in New Orleans and when he was driving out of Birmingham, he would be required to stay overnight for rest. In these situations he incurred expenses for food and lodging. Petitioner kept a log on which he showed meals eaten and where the meals were eaten and he kept receipts for his overnight stays. Petitioner in his log showed the cost of meals on the days when he was not away from home overnight as well as the cost of meals on the days when he was away from home overnight. Petitioner was required to wear uniforms and was not reimbursed for the cleaning of these uniforms. Petitioner paid union dues and incurred telephone expenses in connection with his employment.

Petitioner had moving expenses from New Orleans to Birmingham of $ 346.04 for items directly connected with moving his furniture and family from New Orleans to Birmingham. Petitioner owned a house in Birmingham that had*746 been rented. When he moved back to Birmingham, he decided to make certain repairs and improvements to his house before moving into it. These repairs and improvements cost him a total of $ 1,508.59. Petitioner paid union dues of $ 180.15 in 1977 and had business telephone expenses of $ 89.60. ² Petitioner, in 1977, spent $ 295.45 on cleaning of his uniforms. ³ Petitioner's wife worked during part of 1977 as a librarian for the City of Birmingham. Her work was on a bookmobile and she wore ordinary clothes in the performance of her duties. Petitioner's wife spent a total of $ 174.16 for having the ordinary clothes she wore in her work drycleaned in 1977.

Petitioner drove his automobile a total of 71 round trips from Birmingham to Montgomery during 1977 while he was temporarily employed in Montgomery. The round trip distance was approximately 180 miles, making total mileage driven in connection with his temporary work in Montgomery 12,780 miles. ⁴ Petitioner, in 1977, paid a total amount of*747 $ 1,110 to his ex-wife as alimony.

During the year 1977, petitioner spent a total of $ 536.66 for meals and lodging with respect to bus trips which he drove where he was required to be away from his assigned post of duty overnight.

Petioner, on his Federal income tax return, deducted miscellaneous expenses of $ 924.95, composed of union dues of $ 180.15, uniform cleaning of $ 478.91, tools and equipment of $ 176.29, and business phone use of $ 89.60. He claimed a moving expense deduction of $ 1,854.63 in connection with his move from New Orleans to Birmingham and an employee business expense deduction of $ 3,296.84 composed of meals and lodging of $ 1,824.08 and automobile expenses of $ 1,472.76.

Respondent*748 in his notice of deficiency disallowed all petitioner's claimed moving expenses and employee business expense deduction. Respondent also disallowed petitioner's claimed dependency exemption for his daughter by a prior marriage. Petitioner in his petition claimed that amounts he paid to his ex-wife in 1977 were properly deductible as alimony payments. ⁵

OPINION

Ordinarily, items such as moving expenses are non-deductible family and living expenses. However, section 217 ⁶ allows a deduction to a taxpayer for moving expenses in connection with commencement of work at a new principal place of employment. Section 217 defines moving expenses to mean the reasonable expenses of moving household goods and personal effects from the former residence to the new residence, of traveling, including meals and lodging, from the former residence to the new place of residence, certain travel expenses in connection with the searching for a new residence and meals and lodging while occupying*749 temporary quarters in the general location of the new principal place of work during a period of 30 days after obtaining employment and certain expenses in connection with the sale of the old residence and the purchase of a new residence, or the settlement cost of an unexpired lease or the cost of a new lease. Since, except as allowed by section 217, moving expenses are personal expenditures, a taxpayer is entitled to deduct only those items specifically permitted to be deducted by statute. See , affd. . The statute does not provide for a deduction for repairs and improvements to a house already owned by a taxpayer at his new principal place of employment. Therefore, the $ 1,508.59 that petitioner spent in connection with repairing and improving his house are nondeductible personal or capital expenditures. We therefore hold that petitioner is entitled to a deduction of $ 346.04 as moving expenses.

*750 Section 162 provides that a taxpayer may deduct all of the ordinary and necessary business expenses paid during the taxable year in carrying on his trade or business, including traveling expenses while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business. Traveling expenses include amounts expended for meals and lodging while away from home. However, it is now settled that expenses for meals are not allowable as a business expense deduction except where the amount is expended when a taxpayer is away from home overnight. . We have therefore, as best we can from the documents introduced at the trial, determined the total amount petitioner expended for meals and lodging while he was away from home overnight. It is incumbent on petitioner to prove the amount of his deductible expenses, and he has failed to substantiate any greater amount than the $ 536.66 we have found to be deductible except for amounts he spent for meals on days when he was not away from home overnight.

Respondent has conceded that petitioner is entitled to deduct the cost of the cleaning of his uniforms, so our findings of the amount he expended for*751 this purpose disposes of this issue. We conclude on the basis of the evidence in this record that petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to any deduction for the cost of cleaning the clothing his wife wore while working as a librarian for the City of Birmingham. Apparently from this record petitioner's wife wore regular street clothes in her work. The cost of cleaning and maintaining clothing worn to work which are adaptable to regular wear is a personal and not a business expense. , affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court. We therefore hold that petitioner is not entitled to deduct the cost of the cleaning of his wife's clothes.

There was no dispute between the parties as to the deductibility of any other items claimed by petitioner to be deductible except with respect to amounts. Our findings as to the amount of alimony paid by petitioner to his former wife, our findings with respect to the mileage driven by petitioner to and from Montgomery, and our findings with respect to other amounts spent by petitioner dispose of these issues.

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.