Podems v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 18 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 46306. |
| Citation | 24 T.C. 21 |
| Parties | HORACE E. PODEMS AND BELLE PODEMS, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Horace E. Podems, pro se.
John J. Hopkins, Esq., for the respondent.
1. INCOME DEDUCTIONS— EXPENSE— NECESSARY— REIMBURSABLE.— Automobile expenses, for which the taxpayer could have been reimbursed by by his employer had he made claim therefor, are not necessary expenses of the taxpayer although paid by him.
2. TRAVEL EXPENSE— AWAY FROM HOME— NOT OVERNIGHT— AUTOMOBILE COSTS— SEC. 22(n)(2).— Automobile expenses of an employee, not reimbursable, incurred in business trips away from the city where his place of employment was, were travel expenses while away from home within the meaning of section 22(n)(2) (1939 Code).
The Commissioner determined deficiencies in income tax of $59 for 1948, $67.72 for 1949, and $47.58 for 1950. One of the petitioners used his automobile in connection with his business and the issue for decision is whether any portion of his automobile expense for each year may be subtracted from gross income as travel expense in computing adjusted gross income under section 22(n).
The petitioners, husband and wife, filed returns for the 3 taxable years with the collector of internal revenue for the fifth district of New Jersey. The returns were prepared on a cash basis. The standard deduction was taken.
Horace was employed during the taxable years by the Treasury Department of the United States Government as an internal revenue agent, field examiner. His office was located at Orange, New Jersey. His duties were to audit the income tax returns of taxpayers and he had to travel away from Orange to the place of business or home of most taxpayers in order to conduct the audit. He was authorized by his employer to use his automobile in that work. His duties never required him to be away from Orange overnight.
Horace filed vouchers with his employer for reimbursement of travel expenses for 3 months each in 1948 and 1949 at 5 cents per mile and for 2 months in 1949 and for 8 months in 1950 at 7 cents per mile. All of those vouchers were honored and Horace received as reimbursement for travel expenses the amounts shown in the table below. He never filed any other vouchers relating to use of his automobile during the taxable years.
The following table shows, in connection with Horace's automobile, the total miles traveled, the total cost of operating, the portion and the amount claimed by the petitioner on his return as attributable to his duties as an internal revenue agent, and the amounts received as reimbursements, for each year:
+------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Portion¦Amount ¦Reimburse-¦
+----+-----------+----------+-------+-------+----------¦
¦Year¦Total miles¦Total cost¦claimed¦claimed¦ments ¦
+----+-----------+----------+-------+-------+----------¦
¦1948¦10,000 ¦$620.25 ¦2/3 ¦$413.40¦$24.99 ¦
+----+-----------+----------+-------+-------+----------¦
¦1949¦12,500 ¦738.00 ¦2/3 ¦492.00 ¦33.12 ¦
+----+-----------+----------+-------+-------+----------¦
¦1950¦13,000 ¦815.51 ¦4/9 ¦362.45 ¦82.47 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------+
The automobile expenses of Horace which pertained solely to travel away from Orange on his duties as a revenue agent, which expenses were not reimbursable by his employer, were $300 for 1948, $375 for 1949, and $250 for 1950.
All facts stipulated by the parties are incorporated herein by this reference.
The petitioners claimed the standard deduction under section 23(aa) for each taxable year. Paragraph (2) of that subsection provides that ‘The standard deduction shall be in lieu of: (A) all deductions other than those which under section 22(n) are to be subtracted from gross income in computing adjusted gross income, * * *.’ The petitioners contend that they are entitled under section 22(n)(2) to subtract from gross income, in computing adjusted gross income, the automobile travel expense incurred by Horace in each year, less the amount thereof which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bermingham v. Commissioner
...v. Commissioner [Dec. 26,127], 40 T.C. 345, 356 (1963), affd. [64-1 USTC ¶ 9228] 326 F.2d 760 (2d Cir. 1964); Podems v. Commissioner [Dec. 20,955], 24 T.C. 21, 22-23 (1955). On brief, Raymond states that he was required to supply his own tools for his employment in the field of stress engin......
-
Cheh v. Commissioner
...v. Commissioner [Dec. 26,127], 40 T.C. 345 (1963), affd. per curiam [64-1 USTC ¶ 9228] 326 F.2d 760 (2d Cir. 1964); Podems v. Commissioner [Dec. 20,955], 24 T.C. 21 (1955); See also sec. 1.274-5(e)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs. Second, as we have previously discussed, expenses related to the tran......
-
Schaeffer v. Commissioner
...7 (1982). The burden of establishing that the expense was not reimbursable by the employer rests with petitioner. Podems v. Commissioner [Dec. 20,955], 24 T.C. 21, 23 (1955). Petitioner has not demonstrated that the expenses incurred were not reimbursable. We are not convinced that the hosp......
-
Thompson v. Commissioner
...his business. William C. Stolk Dec. 26,127, 40 T. C. 345 (1963), affd. 64-1 USTC ¶ 9228 326 F. 2d 760 (C. A. 2, 1964); Horace E. Podems Dec. 20,955, 24 T. C. 21 (1955). Accordingly, we approve of respondent's In view of our holdings on the issues presented and to reflect certain concessions......
-
Tax Court In Brief | Luna v. Comm'r | Disallowance Of Itemized Business Deductions And Lack Of Substantiation
...and necessary" if the employee is entitled to reimbursement from his or her employer but fails to seek reimbursement. See Podems v. Comm'r, 24 T.C. 21, 22-23 Under the Cohan doctrine, if a taxpayer provides sufficient evidence that the taxpayer has incurred a trade or business expense conte......
-
Proving employee business expense deductions.
...only unreimbursed business expenses are deductible. Also, business expenses are not "necessary" if reimbursement is possible (Podems, 24 T.C. 21 (1955)). Thus, if an employee incurs an expense that he or she has a right to reimbursement for under an expense reimbursement plan of his or her ......