358 U.S. 59 (1958), 46, Peurifoy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Docket Nº:No. 46
Citation:358 U.S. 59, 79 S.Ct. 104, 3 L.Ed.2d 30
Party Name:Peurifoy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case Date:November 10, 1958
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 59

358 U.S. 59 (1958)

79 S.Ct. 104, 3 L.Ed.2d 30



Commissioner of Internal Revenue

No. 46

United States Supreme Court

Nov. 10, 1958

Argued October 16, 20, 1958




When a case arising under the Internal Revenue Laws turns on an issue of fact and it appears that, in reviewing the Tax Court's factual determination, the Court of Appeals has made a fair assessment of the record, this Court will not intervene. Pp. 59-61.

254 F.2d 483 affirmed.

Per curiam opinion.


The petitioners were employed as construction workers at a site in Kinston, North Carolina, for continuous periods of 20 1/2 months, 12 1/2 months, and 8 1/2 months, respectively, ending in the year 1953. Each of the petitioners maintained a permanent residence elsewhere in North Carolina. In reporting his adjusted gross income for 1953, each petitioner deducted amounts expended for board and lodging at Kinston during the period of employment there, and for transportation from Kinston to his permanent residence upon leaving that employment. These deductions were disallowed by the respondent. Ensuing Tax Court proceedings resulted in a decision in favor of the petitioners. 27 T.C. 149. The Court of Appeals reversed. 254 F.2d 483. We granted certiorari, 356 U.S. 956, to consider certain questions as

Page 60

to the application of § 23(a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 * raised by the course of decisions in the lower courts since our decision in Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465. However, as the case has been presented to us, we have found it inappropriate to consider such questions.

The issue is whether the amounts in question constituted allowable deductions under § 23(a)(1)(A). Generally, a taxpayer is entitled to deduct unreimbursed travel expenses under this subsection only when they are required by "the exigencies of business." Commissioner v. Flowers, supra. Application of this general rule would require affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the present case.

To this rule, however, the Tax Court has engrafted an exception which allows a deduction for expenditures of the type made in this case when the taxpayer's employment is "temporary," as contrasted with "indefinite" or "indeterminate." Compare Schurer v. Commissioner, 3 T.C. 544; Leach v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 20; Albert v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. 129, with Warren v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. 205; Whitaker v. Commissioner, 24 T.C. 750. The respondent does not in the present case challenge the validity of this exception to...

To continue reading