Teer v. Commissioner, Docket No. 2940-62
| Decision Date | 26 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | 2942-62.,Docket No. 2940-62 |
| Citation | 1964 TC Memo 80,23 TCM (CCH) 493 |
| Parties | Ewell L. Teer and Lillie M. Teer v. Commissioner. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
Lester L. May, Life Bldg., Dallas, Tex., and William H. McRae, for the petitioners. Bruce C. Hallmark, for the respondent.
Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion
Respondent determined deficiencies in the income taxes of petitioners for the years and in the amounts as follows:
Year Deficiency
1959............. $442.31
1960............. 349.78
There are two issues: (1) Whether certain automobile expenses incurred by petitioner Lillie M. Teer are deductible business expenses under section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; and (2) whether a certain portion of petitioners' residence is depreciable property used in a trade or business deductible under section 167 of the 1954 Code.
Some of the facts are stipulated, and the stipulation and exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioners are husband and wife and reside in Dallas, Texas. They filed their joint Federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1959 and 1960 with the district director of internal revenue at Dallas, Texas. Since the issues concern expenses incurred by Lillie M. Teer, she hereinafter will be referred to as petitioner.
Petitioner is licensed by the State of Texas as a vocational nurse. In 1959 and 1960 she was engaged in performing services as a nurse. Generally she received requests for her services at her home through calls from doctors or the Dallas County Nurses' Registry. At times she solicited employment through the Nurses' Registry. Her services were performed either at the home of her patients or at hospitals in which they were located.
In traveling to the homes of her patients, petitioner used a 1958 Chevrolet. Petitioners also owned a Ford automobile. Petitioner's husband drove petitioner to and from her employment because she had an arthritic condition, a form of cancer, and osteomyelitis of the bone. Petitioner carried a satchel containing nursing equipment when she visited the homes of her patients.
At her home, petitioner had one room which she used in treating patients. This room contained two beds, a telephone, a reclining chair, a table with magazines, a desk where papers were kept, and a filing cabinet where patients' records were kept. The measurements of this room were approximately one-fifth the measurements of the house. Services which petitioner typically performed for patients which came to her home were administering hypodermic injections, checking respiration and pulse, taking temperature, and administering first aid. Petitioner made few, if any, charges for the services which she performed in her home. Petitioner slept in the room in which she treated her home patients.
During 1959 and 1960 petitioner was employed on regular night duty by four patients as follows: William E. Ray, sometime prior to January 1959 to May 16, 1959; Mrs. Walter D. Allard, May 28, 1959, to December 17, 1959; Millie Guthrie, January 19, 1960, to April 18, 1960; and R. H. Gamble, May 7, 1960, to December 31, 1960. Her compensation for her employment with these four persons was respectively $1,900, $3,617.25, $1,508.75, and $4,129.25. In addition to her nightly duties, petitioner often made extra trips during the day to perform nursing services for Ray, Gamble, and Allard. She frequently took Ray and Allard for drives and on errands in her atuomobile for which she received additional compensation in the amounts of $204.25 and $457.50, respectively.
In addition to her regular employment with the above-named persons in 1959 and 1960, petitioner also was employed by the following persons on eight or twelve-hour shifts on the indicated dates:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1959 Compensation
A. M. Ottinger May 19 through May 20 .................. $22.50
S. S. Andrews May 21 ................................. 11.25
James Manning May 22 ................................. 11.25
Lucile Davis May 23 ................................. 11.25
J. F. Thompson May 24 through May 27 .................. 66.00
1960
Mattie Williams April 29 ............................... 18.25
Mrs. M. G. Levy May 2 .................................. 27.75
W. A. McKinley May 4 .................................. 12.75
Mrs. B. S. Cooper May 6 .................................. 12.75
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On their Federal income tax returns for the years 1959 and 1960 petitioners deducted 90 percent of the total expense of their 1958 Chevrolet; respondent disallowed the deduction of these expenses exceeding 20 percent of total expenses. In their petition, petitioners claim deductibility of 100 percent of the expenses of their Chevrolet and of depreciation on 20 percent of their residence.
The automobile expenses incurred by petitioner in getting to and from her residence and the places where her services for her patients were performed are personal expenses.
No part of petitioners' residence was used in a trade or business.
OpinionThe first issue is whether the automobile expenses incurred by petitioner in traveling back and forth from her residence to the hospitals or patients' homes where she was employed on regular nursing shifts during the years 1959 and 1960 are deductible in computing petitioners' Federal income tax liability for those years. Petitioners claim that these expenses are deductible as ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or business or specifically as traveling expenses while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business under section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.1 Respondent contends that these expenses are personal expenses nondeductible under section 262.2
Expenses incurred by a taxpayer in getting to and from his residence and his place of work are personal rather than business expenses. Commissioner v. Flowers 46-1 USTC ¶ 9127, 326 U. S. 465; James A. Kistler Dec. 26,195, 40 T. C. 657; William L. Heuer, Jr. Dec. 23,696, 32 T. C. 947, affd. 61-1 USTC ¶ 9123 283 F. 2d 865 (C. A. 5); Williard I. Thompson Dec. 17,924, 15 T. C. 609, reversed on other grounds 52-1 USTC ¶ 9124, 193 F. 2d 586 (C. A. 10); Mort L. Bixler Dec. 2084, 5 B. T. A. 1181; Frank H. Sullivan Dec. 48, 1 B. T. A. 93. Such expenses are not the kind of expenditures contemplated by section 162 as being incurred in carrying on a trade or business. Commissioner v. Flowers, supra. It is immaterial that a special mode of transportation is necessitated by a taxpayer's physical disability. James Donnelly Dec. 22,592, 28 T. C. 1278, affd. 59-1 USTC ¶ 9196 262 F. 2d 411 (C. A. 2) (); John C. Bruton Dec. 16,122, 9 T. C. 882 (). As we said in William L. Heuer, Jr., supra, at 951:
The rule is the same regardless of the distance traveled between the residence and the place of business, regardless of any equitable consideration which makes the use of a particular mode of transportation necessary, irrespective of whether or not public transportation is available, and irrespective of whether living accommodations are available to the taxpayer and his family at or near the place of business.
Petitioner relies in part upon Income Tax Regulations section 1.162-63 which provides that the automobile expenses of a professional person incurred in making professional calls are deductible under section 162. However, petitioner was employed by each of the patients in connection with which the disputed expenses were incurred on regular shifts for a fixed charge per week or per shift. She received no compensation for any nursing services which she may have performed for other persons while in the employ of her paying patients. Although expenses of automobile travel incurred by a professional person in the conduct of his profession, such as emergency or house calls made by a doctor or meetings by a lawyer with his clients, are deductible under section 162, expenses of getting back and forth to his place of work are not. See Clarence J. Sapp Dec. 24,977, 36 T. C. 852, affd. per curiam 62-2 USTC ¶ 9797 309 F. 2d 143 (C. A. 5); Lenke Marot Dec. 24,815, 36 T. C. 238; Frank H. Sullivan, supra. Petitioner's travel to the places where her services for her patients were performed was in the nature of getting to work rather than of making professional calls. She was not using her car for making a round of calls for services of a limited duration. She traveled from home to employment and not from work to work.
Petitioner also argues that her automobile expenses incurred in getting to and from her patients' homes or the hospitals in which they were interned qualify under section 162 as specifically deductible traveling expenses while away from home in pursuit of a trade or business. A taxpayer's "home" for purposes of section 162 is his place of employment if he is an employee or his principal place of business if he is self-employed. Raymond...
To continue reading
Request your trial