Starr v. Commissioner
Opinion
*359 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COHEN, JUDGE: Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 2,084 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1995 and an addition to tax of $ 539.50 under
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
BACKGROUND
This case was submitted fully stipulated under Rule 122. The stipulated facts are incorporated as our findings by this reference.
During 1995, William K. Starr (petitioner) resided in Phoenix, Arizona. Petitioner operated "Climb On A Rainbow", a sole proprietorship that provided hot air balloon rides to customers.
Petitioner operated his sole proprietorship for part of 1995 in Phoenix, Arizona, and the remainder of the*360 year in Woodinville, Washington. During 1995, petitioner lived in a rented apartment in Woodinville for 156 days while operating his business.
On his Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, for 1995, petitioner claimed a travel expense deduction of $ 18,748, of which $ 18,720 represented lodging costs incurred in Washington. Petitioner computed his lodging expenses based on a per diem rate of $ 120 per day for the 156 days that he operated his business in Woodinville.
Respondent disallowed the $ 18,748 per diem lodging expense deduction claimed by petitioner but allowed a deduction of $ 5,595 for the lodging expenses actually incurred while operating the business in Washington. The actual expenses were computed as follows:
Rent $ 3,521
Electricity 257
Cable 178
Utilities 544
Entertainment 1,095
------
Total $ 5,595
Petitioner concedes that the maximum*361 lodging deduction that he could claim in 1995 using a per diem rate would be $ 12,948, computed as the maximum Federal per diem rate multiplied by the 156 days that petitioner lived in Woodinville for business purposes. The maximum Federal per diem rate for lodging in King County, Washington, where Woodinville is located, was $ 83 per day during 1995.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends that a self-employed individual is entitled to use the Federal per diem rate to substantiate expenditures for lodging away from home. Respondent claims that petitioner, as a sole proprietor, is precluded from using the Federal per diem rate and is entitled only to a deduction equal to his actual lodging expenses substantiated under
Lodging expenses that are incurred while traveling away from home in the pursuit of business are generally deductible under
credit shall be allowed --
(1) under
(including meals and lodging while away from home),
* * * * * * *
unless the taxpayer substantiates by adequate records or by
sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer's own statement
(A) the amount of such expense or other item, (B) the time and
place of the travel * * *, (C) the business purpose of the
expense or other item * * *
The Secretary is vested with the authority to prescribe rules waiving the substantiation requirements in circumstances where it is impracticable for documentary evidence to be required. See
providing rules under which the amount of ordinary and necessary
business expenses of an employee for lodging, meal, and/or
incidental expenses incurred while traveling away from home will
be deemed substantiated under sec. 1.274-5T of the temporary
Income Tax Regulations*363 when a payor (the employer, its agent, or
a third party) provides a per diem allowance under a
reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangement to pay for
such expenses. This revenue procedure also provides an optional
method for EMPLOYEES AND SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS to use in
computing the deductible costs of business meal and incidental
expenses paid or incurred while traveling away from home. * * *
[Emphasis added.]
Under
This Court has previously addressed the issue of whether a self-employed individual is entitled to use the Federal per diem rate to substantiate the amount of deductible lodging expenses for travel away from home under
[15] Petitioner would have us disregard the specific language of
To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the parties,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.