DocketNumber: Docket No. 13544-79.
Citation Numbers: 42 T.C.M. 602, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 329, 1981 T.C. Memo. 413
Filed Date: 8/10/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
*329
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
WILES,
1. Whether a payment made to petitioner Robert Eugene Evans for sixty days of accrued leave upon his retirement from the United States Air Force is includable in his gross income.
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to a claimed job-hunting expense deduction under
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.
Robert Eugene Evans (hereinafter petitioner) and Fay Stull Evans, husband and wife, resided in Chandler, Arizona, when they filed their 1977 joint Federal income tax return and when they filed their petition in this case.
Petitioner was in the United States Air Force for 22 1/2 years. During his*331 military career, petitioner was a commissioned officer and had served in various capacities, including service as a pilot, teacher, and programs and plans officer with NATO and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Petitioner had also served in combat.
From 1973 until February 1977, petitioner was Special Assistant to the Base Commander at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona. In this capacity, petitioner had from five to twelve people under his command and performed a "potpourri of duties," encompassing a wide variety of special assignments. Among other duties, he was responsible for the relocation of base families during the renovation of base housing, assessed base recreation areas, established an aircraft museum, dealt with juvenile delinquency problems, and managed the Bicentennial Ceremonies for the base.
In February 1977, petitioner retired from the Air Force at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Upon retiring, he was paid $ 4,102.80 for 60 days of accrued leave, the maximum allowed by law. No part of this payment was designated to have accrued during combat.
After his retirement from the Air Force, petitioner sought employment in the private sector. From April 27, 1977 through May 1, 1977, petitioner*332 and his wife visited the Washington, D.C., area. On April 28, 1977, they met with a representative of Martin & Otterback, Inc., a company specializing in engine rebuilding and automotive parts, in Bladensburg, Maryland. Petitioner interviewed for a position that would entail assuming many of the duties of the retiring vice-president of the company. The company was interested in petitioner because of his background and the contacts he had made in the Washington area while assigned to the Pentagon during his military career. While in Washington, petitioner and his wife also visited family and friends. During this trip, they incurred the following expenses:
Airfare | $ 612.00 |
Car Rental | 101.67 |
Lodging | 47.09 |
Gas | 10.96 |
Attorney Fees | 150.00 |
Meals and Miscellaneous | 274.45 |
From July 18, 1977 through July 23, 1977, petitioner and his wife visited San Diego, California. Although petitioner searched for employment during this trip, he had not scheduled any job interviews prior to his departure for San Diego. While in San Diego, petitioner and his wife also visited friends and spent time sightseeing and shopping. During this trip, they incurred the following expenses: *333
Travel | $ 182.92 |
Meals | 105.21 |
Lodging (rate for single) | 87.80 |
Phone | 4.42 |
Petitioner's efforts to secure employment were unsuccessful, and he returned to college in 1978.
On their 1977 return, petitioner and his wife claimed a job-junting expense deduction of $ 1,585 for the expenses of their trips to Washington and San Diego. They did not include the payment that petitioner received for accrued leave in their gross income. In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed the claimed job-hunting expense deduction and determined that petitioner had additional income of $ 4,102.80, attributable to the payment for accrued leave.
OPINION
We must first decide whether the payment made to petitioner for 60 days of accrued leave upon his retirement from the Air Force is includable in his gross income.
It is respondent's position that the payment made to petitioner for accrued leave represents compensation for services and constitutes gross income under
*335 Petitioner, however, contends that it would be inequitable to include this payment in his gross income because by law he could only receive compensation for a maximum of 60 days of accrued leave upon his retirement even though he accumulated a far greater amount. See
Although petitioner has argued that the payment he received for accrued leave is exempt from taxation under section 7 of the Armed Forces Leave Act of 1946, ch. 931, 60 Stat. 963, 967, such an argument is without merit. In pertinent part, section 7 of the Armed Forces Leave Act of 1946,
Finally, petitioner maintains that taxation of the payment he received for accrued leave is prohibited by Pub. L. No. 95-427, sec. 1, 92 Stat. 996 (1978), as amended by Pub. L. No. 96-167, sec. 1, 93 Stat. 1275 (1979). We reject this argument. Public L. No. 95-427,
We next consider whether petitioner is entitled to the claimed job-hunting expense deduction under
Prior to his retirement, petitioner was engaged in the business of serving as an officer in the United States Air Force. In seeking employment in the private sector upon retiring, petitioner was attempting to enter a new trade or business. See
While petitioner undoubtedly sought employment that would utilize the skills he acquired during his military career, he has failed to show us that there would not be substantial differences between the employment he sought to obtain in the private sector and his service as an Air Force officer. Compare
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.↩
2. Since no part of the accrued leave paid to petitioner was designated to have accrued during combat, petitioner has conceded that he is not entitled to any exclusion under sec. 112. See
3. See also
4. Pub. L. No. 95-427, sec. 1, 92 Stat. 996 (1978) states:
SECTION 1. FRINGE BENEFIT REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--No fringe benefit regulation shall be issued--
(1) in final form on or after May 1, 1978, and on or before December 31, 1979, or
(2) in proposed or final form, on or after May 1, 1978, if such regulation has an effective date on or before December 31, 1979.
(b) Definition of Fringe Benefit Regulation.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term "fringe benefit regulation" means a regulation providing for the inclusion of any fringe benefit in gross income by reason of
Pub. L. No. 95-427, sec. 1, 92 Stat. 996 (1978), was amended by Pub. L. No. 96-167, sec. 1, 93 Stat. 1275 (1979), to extend the prohibition to May 31, 1981.↩