Coombs v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 15 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | 1301—74,1298—74,7595—74,5384—75,1294—74,1585—74,8304—75,Docket Nos: 970—74,4820—75,1312—74,1163—74,4818—75,1369—74,1297—74,8220—74,1290—74,8485—74,7508—74,8914—75,1035—74,1329—74,2405—75,1291—74,7194—74,4817—75,1237—74,1422—74,1488—74,7090—74,1390—74,10158—75.,7774—74,1241—74,7290—74,1316—74,8611—74,4437—75,3618—74,1661—75,8983—75,8982—75,1418—74,1118—74,1324— 74,1405—74,7021—75,1302—74,10157—75,4819—75,1027—74,1372—74,1357—74,1388—74,1408—74,1339—74,1161—74,1466—74,1327—74,5805—74,1494—74,1389—74,6845—74,1193—74,2935—74,1455—74,1295— 74,1292—74,1234—74,1309—74 |
| Parties | LEE E. COOMBS AND JUDY B. COOMBS, ET AL.,1 PETITIONERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petitioners were employed at the Nevada test site, a nuclear testing facility located in a remote area of the Nevada desert. They traveled, on a daily basis, between their respective residences in the metropolitan Las Vegas area and their work locations at the test site. All Federal employees permanently assigned to the test site and all employees of private contractors who work at the test site receive, in addition to their regular salary, a daily or per diem allowance for each day they report for duty at the test site. The amount of the allowance is $5 per day when their reporting point is Camp Mercury and $7.50 per day when required to report to any forward area. Employees who are members of certain craft unions receive an additional travel allowance of $0.50 to $2.50 per day depending on where they report to work. Held, the test site allowance paid to private contractor employees and Federal employees is includable in gross income under sec. 61(a), I.R.C. 1954, and is not excludable from gross income under sec. 119. Held, further, the expenses incurred by petitioners in traveling between their respective homes in the metropolitan Las Vegas area and the test site are nondeductible commuting expenses. Held, further, the costs of meals and lodging incurred by some of the petitioners at the test site are not deductible as business expenses under sec. 162. Norman H. McNeil, for the petitioners.
Douglas K. Cook, for the respondent.
In these consolidated cases respondent determined deficiencies in the Federal income taxes of petitioners as follows:
The issues presented for decision are (1) whether the daily allowance which the petitioners receive for each day they report for work at the Nevada test site is includable in income under section 61(a)4 or excludable from income under section 119; and (2) whether the expenses incurred by the petitioners at the Nevada test site in traveling between their homes in the metropolitan Las Vegas area and the Nevada test site, and other expenses associated with such employment, are deductible as business expenses under section 162.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and those facts are so found.
All of the petitioners in these consolidated cases filed their Federal income tax returns for the years in issue with the Internal Revenue Service Center at Ogden, Utah.
I. General Facts Relating to the Nevada Test Site
During all or part of each of the years in issue in each of the consolidated cases at least one petitioner was employed at the Nevada test site (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the test site or the site).
The Nevada test site is a portion of the U.S. Air Force's Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range, renamed the Nevada Proving Ground in 1951 when jurisdiction was transferred to the Atomic Energy Commission, now the Energy Research and Development Administration (hereinafter sometimes referred to as ERDA). The test site consists of approximately 1,350 square miles or approximately 850,000 acres located in a remote area of the Nevada desert, surrounded by mountains, with its southernmost boundary, Camp Mercury, located about 65 miles north of Las Vegas, Nev., and its northernmost boundary, area 20, located about 135 miles north of Las Vegas, Nev. The test site has been randomly divided into numbered areas from 1 through 30,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michel v. C. I. R., 77-3422
...within the meaning of section 61, I.R.C.1954. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 75 S.Ct. 473, 99 L.Ed. 483; Coombs v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 426, 470 (on appeal, C.A.9); Verner v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 749; see Cockrell v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 470, affirmed 321 F.2d 504 (C.A......
-
Coombs v. C. I. R.
...whose fifty-two cases were consolidated for trial in the Tax Court. The Tax Court's opinion, Coombs v. Commissioner, is reported at 67 T.C. 426 (1976). The appellants in No. 78-2036 are taxpayers whose fifteen cases were consolidated for trial in the District of Nevada. The district court's......
-
Drum v. Commissioner
...* * [Coombs v. Commissioner [79-2 USTC ¶ 9719], 608 F.2d 1269, 1275 (9th Cir. 1979), affg. in part, revg. in part, and remanding [Dec. 34,151] 67 T.C. 426 (1976).] 10. According to the slightly different standard articulated by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "An employee might ......
-
Lackey v. Commissioner
...is his principal place of business or employment. Bochner v. Commissioner Dec. 34,260, 67 T.C. 824, 827 (1977); Coombs v. Commissioner Dec. 34,151, 67 T.C. 426, 478 (1976), on appeal (9th Cir., Feb. 14, 1977); Foote v. Commissioner Dec. 34,047, 67 T.C. 1, 4 (1976); Blatnick v. Commissioner ......