Bixler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 936.

• Citation: 5 BTA 1181
• Decision Date: 26 January 1927
• Docket Number: Docket No. 936.
• Parties: MORT L. BIXLER, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
• Court: U.S. Board of Tax Appeals

5 B.T.A. 1181 (1927)

MORT L. BIXLER, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

Docket No. 936.

Board of Tax Appeals.

Promulgated January 26, 1927.

Mort L. Bixler pro se.

Henry Ravenel, Esq., for the respondent.

The Commissioner determined a deficiency of $40.31 for the calendar year 1922, which the petitioner claims was erroneous for the reason that he was not allowed a deduction of $1,068 expended for railroad fare, lodging, meals and laundry.

FINDINGS OF FACT.

During the year 1922 petitioner maintained a residence at Mobile, Ala., at which place his family remained throughout the year. It was and had been his practice to obtain contracts for the organization and management of state and municipal fairs and expositions, that is to say, he sought employment by the officers or committee in charge of a particular state or municipal fair or exposition, as manager, at the best salary he could obtain. The terms and conditions of petitioner's employment were embodied in a contract between such officers or committee and himself, and covered the period during which the fair or exposition was to be held. Prior to 1922 the contracts of employment usually covered a period of one year. During the year 1922 he was paid a fixed salary, and upon entering upon the discharge of the duties of his employment he remained at his post of duty at the place where the fair or exposition was being held. He paid his railroad fare in traveling from Mobile, where his family resided, to the point of his employment, as well as his personal living expenses while there. When his contract of employment to manage a fair ended, or in the event of his resignation, petitioner sought employment as manager of a fair or exposition in some other State or municipality.

Throughout the year 1921, and on April 15, 1922, petitioner was in the employ of the Florida Parishes Fair, at Hammond, La., at a fixed salary of $3,000 per annum. While he was so employed he made two or three trips to visit his family in Mobile. Shortly prior to April 15, 1922, he learned that the Houston Fair and Exposition at Houston, Tex., was desirous of obtaining the services of someone, whereupon he went from Hammond to Houston to investigate the matter and to confer with those in charge of the fair with the view of being employed by them. As a result of the conference, a contract was entered into between the parties under the terms of which petitioner was employed at a fixed salary of $5,000 per annum. Petitioner immediately returned to Hammond, resigned his position as manager of the fair at that point on April 15, 1922, and forthwith proceeded to Houston and entered upon the discharge of his duties at that place. While at Houston petitioner paid his own living expenses. On one occasion he went to Mobile to visit his family. His contract of employment with the Houston Fair ended December 15, 1922, at which time petitioner returned to his home in Mobile.

During the year 1922 petitioner was conducting no business at Mobile, Ala. During the entire year 1923 he was in the employ of the Gulf States Fair at Mobile, Ala.

During the year 1922 petitioner expended $1,068 for railroad fare, lodging, meals, and laundry. Of this amount $191 was for railroad fare in going from Hammond to Houston and return in connection with obtaining employment; Hammond to Houston to enter upon his new employment; Houston to Mobile to visit his family and return, and from Houston to Mobile upon the completion of his work for the Houston Fair. The remainder of the $1,068, or $877, represented the amount expended for meals and laundry while employed at Hammond, and lodging, meals, and laundry at Houston. Petitioner was not reimbursed by his employers for these expenses.

OPINION.

LITTLETON:

Petitioner claims that the amount of $1,068 was expended in the pursuit of a trade or business and was a proper deduction from...