Finney v. Commissioner ( 1980 )

JOHN C. FINNEY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Finney v. Commissioner

Docket No. 2542-79.

United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo 1980-241; 1980 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 347; 40 T.C.M. (CCH) 608; T.C.M. (RIA) 80241;

July 8, 1980, Filed

---

John C. Finney, pro se.

Scott W. Gray, for the respondent.

---

HALL

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

HALL, Judge: Respondent determined a $720.80 deficiency in petitioner's income tax for 1976. Due to a concession by petitioner, the sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to deduct the entire $11,552 business expense claimed on his 1976 return.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.

At the time of filing his petition, petitioner John C. Finney was a resident of Phoenix, Arizona.

Petitioner was an electrician who maintained a residence in Phoenix during 1976. From approximately January 1 to March 15, 1976, petitioner was unemployed. From mid-March to September, 1976, petitioner was employed by Fischbach and Moore Inc. in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to work on the remodeling of a pulp mill for Georgia Pacific.He spent $866.30 for lodging during his stay in Baton Rouge.

From September through the end of 1976 petitioner was employed by Jelco, Inc. in Huntington, Utah, to work on the repair of the electrical system at the Huntington Power Station of Utah Power and Light. While employed in Huntington, petitioner spent $834.75 for rental of a trailer home.

All petitioner's employment during 1976 was temporary in nature.

On his 1976 return, petitioner deducted $8,602 for meals and lodging and $2,950 for automobile expenses as employee business expenses incurred while away from home. In his notice of deficiency, respondent allowed $1,701.05 for lodging expenses, $3,712.50 for meals ($13.50 per day for the 275 days while away from home) and $2,475 for automobile expenses.Respondent disallowed the remaining $3,683.25 ^{*349 expenses.}

OPINION

The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to deduct employee business expenses for meals, lodging and automobile expenses while away from home.

Section 162

Petitioner has not presented any evidence to substantiate the amounts claimed for meals, lodging and transportation in excess of the amounts allowed by respondent. Accordingly, petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof, Rule 142(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and respondent's determinations are sustained.

Decision will be entered for the respondent .

---

Footnotes

• 1. The correct figure should have been $3,663.45.↩

• 2. All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as in effect during the year in issue.↩