Peurifoy v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 55694

Decision Date31 October 1956
Docket Number56262.,Docket Nos. 55694,56074
Citation27 T.C. 149
PartiesJAMES E. PEURIFOY, ET AL.,1 PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
CourtU.S. Tax Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Daniel R. Dixon, Esq., for the petitioners.

Hubert E. Kelly, Esq., for the respondent.

DEDUCTIONS— TRAVELING EXPENSES.— Held, that the evidence establishes that the employment of the petitioners away from the places of their established residences was temporary in character and that the costs of meals, lodging, and transportation constituted deductible traveling expenses while away from home. Secs. 22(n) and 23(a)(1)(A), I.R.C. 1939.

The respondent determined deficiencies in income tax for the calendar year 1953 as follows:

+------------------------------------------+
                ¦Jame E. Peurifoy                  ¦$449.88¦
                +----------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Paul V. Stines and Betty O. Stines¦492.12 ¦
                +----------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦John S. Hall and Doris D. Hall    ¦365.06 ¦
                +------------------------------------------+
                

The question presented is whether amounts expended by James E. Peurifoy, Paul V. Stines, and John S. Hall, hereinafter referred to as the petitioners, for board and lodging at a job site and for transportation therefrom to their residences after termination of employment are deductible pursuant to sections 22(n) and 23(a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, or whether they constitute nondeductible personal expenditures under section 24(a)(1).

FINDINGS OF FACT.

In the case of each petitioner some of the facts were stipulated and are found as stipulated, the stipulations being incorporated herein by this reference.

Returns were timely filed by the petitioners for the calendar year 1953 with the district director of internal revenue for the district of North Carolina.

The petitioner James E. Peurifoy is a pipe welder. Since August 13, 1951, he has been a member of local No. 329, with headquarters in Wilmington, North Carolina, of the trade union known as the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (hereinafter referred to as the union). The petitioner Stines is a journeyman plumber and the petitioner Hall is a welder. Since 1947 and 1952, respectively, they have been members of local No. 785 of the same union, with headquarters at Raleigh, North Carolina. They all obtain employment through their local unions which send them to various work sites where they are then hired by the employer.

Members of local unions are often sent to other jurisdictions for work. In the case of a large project journeymen workers, as distinguished from foremen or superintendents, may be drawn from various States. Where a job requires more skilled craftsmen than a local union has available in the area, the local union will deal with other local unions in the same State or other States in order to procure the necessary workers. If this does not produce sufficient workmen the national union will procure journeymen and apprentices from all over the country. A journeyman craftsman working on construction projects may have several different employers in the course of a year or even though he may work for one employer throughout a year, he may work at several different job sites. In the building and construction industry, some construction jobs such as the Atomic Energy projects, may run for a period of years, but the general run of jobs is for a period of a few weeks or for a few months.

The petitioner Peurifoy is, and was during the year 1953, an unmarried individual. During the entire year 1953, he owned and maintained a residence at Kure Beach, North Carolina, which is about 20 miles from Wilmington. He actually resides there when he is employed in the vicinity of Wilmington and returns to this residence on weekends if the place of employment is within a reasonable distance. He uses his own automobile for transportation.

He was first employed by the Piping Equipment Company with main offices in Greensboro, North Carolina, to work on a paper mill at Acme, North Carolina. He worked on this project from about August 13, 1951, until about March 10, 1952.

He was next employed by the Grinnell Company of Charlotte, North Carolina, to work on the duPont plant at Kinston, North Carolina. He worked on this project from March 10, 1952, until November 20, 1953. While so employed he roomed and boarded near Kinston and from January 1, 1953, through November 20, 1953, he expended for room and board the sum of $496. The distance from his home in Kure Beach to the duPont plant is approximately 122 miles. The cost to him of driving his automobile from Kinston to Kure Beach after termination of this employment was $8.54.

He was next employed by the Grinnell Company to work on the Carolina Light and Power Company plant at Mount Misery, North Carolina, situated about 7 miles from Wilmington. He worked on this project from November 30, 1953, through May 14, 1955, and while he worked on this project he resided in his residence at Kure Beach. Thereafter, in 1955, he worked at Cherry Point, North Carolina, for 3 months, at Acme, North Carolina, for 2 weeks, and at Barberton, Ohio, for about 1 week.

In his return for 1953, he deducted the amount of $1,920.80 from gross income as ‘Subsistence and temporary quarters necessary for earning income, not reimbursed by employer.’ The respondent disallowed the entire claimed deduction on the ground that payment thereof had not been proven and that even if paid the expenditure represented personal and living expenses.

The petitioners Paul V. Stines and Betty O. Stines are husband and wife. Betty O. Stines appears as a petitioner by virtue of having joined in the filing of the income tax return for 1953. During the entire year 1953 they maintained a residence in Raleigh, North Carolina, and had maintained such residence since sometime in 1952. Betty O. Stines and the petitioners' minor child actually resided in such residence during the entire year 1953.

Since 1947, when he became a member of the union, the petitioner Paul V. Stines has had about 30 jobs ranging in duration from 2 weeks to over a year. He worked for one employer for over 2 years but on different jobs in different locations. He was employed by the Grinnell Company of Charlotte, North Carolina, to work on the duPont plant at Kinston, North Carolina, from March 26, 1952, until about April 10, 1953, when he was discharged. While so employed, he rented a room at Kinston, North Carolina, and ate his meals in restaurants. During 1953 he expended $262.50 for room and board. The distance from Raleigh to Kinston by automobile is approximately 78 miles and the distance from Kinston to the plant site is approximately an additional 8 miles. He drove his car or rode with others from his residence in Raleigh to his rooming house in Kinston and returned once a week. The cost to him, under his car-pool arrangement, for transportation from Kinston to Raleigh upon termination of his work in Kinston was $1.09. While employed at Kinston he received 14.8 cents per hour greater than the normal union scale in accordance with the agreement between the Grinnell Company and the union. All union employees received this additional amount regardless of where they were living. This extra amount was intended to compensate the employees for time expended in going from the town of Kinston to the job site and return.

He was next employed by Carl B. Mims of Raleigh from about April 13, 1953, to about April 28, 1953, to work in and around the environs of Raleigh.

He then worked for A. L. Wright and Company, Inc., of Portsmouth, Virginia, from about May 6, 1953, to about June 23, 1953, when he quit for personal reasons. This work was performed on the Westinghouse plant near Raleigh.

His next employment was with Markowitz Bros., Inc., of Miami, Florida, to work on an airbase near Charleston, South Carolina. He worked there from about June 23, 1953, to about July 15, 1953. He went to Charleston by driving his car. The distance from Raleigh to Charleston is approximately 300 miles and the distance from his boarding house in Charleston to the plant site is approximately 11 miles. While at Charleston the petitioner expended $57 for room and board. The expenses incurred for driving his car from Raleigh to Charleston and return was $42.

He was next employed by Biemann and Rowell of Raleigh, North Carolina, from August 1, 1953, through December 31, 1953. While so employed he was loaned by his employer to Garrison and Hopkins Company, Inc., of Charlotte, North Carolina, to work on the S. H. Kress Company job in Raleigh, and to Cooper and Goodwin of Raleigh to work from December 9, 1953, through December 30, 1953, in and around the environs of Raleigh. He also worked for Garrison and Hopkins Company, Inc., at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for approximately 7 1/2 weeks during 1953. While there he expended $155.63 for room and board. The distance from Raleigh to Fort Bragg is approximately 50 miles. The cost of his transportation for the round trip to Fort Bragg was approximately $7.

In their return for the year 1953, the petitioners Paul V. and Betty O. Stines deducted the amount of $2,480 from gross income for ‘Subsistence and quarter (sic) non reimbursable by employer necessary to earning income.’ The respondent disallowed the deduction for the same reasons as in the case of the petitioner Peurifoy.

The petitioners John S. Hall and Doris D. Hall are husband and wife. They have three minor children. During the entire year 1953 they maintained a residence in Raleigh, North Carolina. They maintained such residence for approximately 4 years ending in the early part of 1954. Doris D. Hall and the three children actually resided there during the entire year 1953.

The petitioner John S. Hall was first employed in 1952 by the Grinnell Company of Charlotte, North Carolina, to work on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Marple v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 24329-04S (U.S.T.C. 5/21/2007)
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 21 d1 Maio d1 2007
    ...API was temporary for the purpose of deducting business mileage. See Commissioner v. Peurifoy, 254 F.2d 483, 486 (4th Cir. 1957), revg. 27 T.C. 149 (1956), affd. per curiam 358 U.S. 59 (1958); Kasun v. United States, 671 F.2d 1059, 1061-1063 (7th Cir. 1982). Moreover, prior jobs of short du......
  • Muhl v. Commissioner, Docket No. 3580-84.
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 24 d4 Julho d4 1986
    ... ... under section 162(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,1 and whether 51 TCM (CCH) ... Commissioner v. Peurifoy, 57-2 USTC ¶ 10,045, 254 F.2d 483, 486 (4th Cir ... ...
  • Portillo v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 13 d1 Setembro d1 1982
    ... ... Portillo ... Commissioner ... Docket No. 2463-80 ... United States Tax Court ... the provisions of section 7456(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and Rule 180.1 The Court ... Memo. 1964-110; see Commissioner v. Peurifoy 57-2 USTC ¶ 10,045, 254 F. 2d 483 (4th Cir ... ...
  • Kroll v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 29 d4 Fevereiro d4 1968
    ...presence at the second location is not regarded as ‘away from home.’ Commissioner v. Peurifoy, 254 F.2d 483 (C.A. 4, 1957), reversing 27 T.C. 149 (1956), affirmed per curiam 358 U.S. 59 (1958). Further, if the employment while away from home, even if temporary in its inception, becomes subs......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT