Armstrong v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner was employed by the Great Northern Railroad as a brakeman. His daily routine included the boarding of a work train in Glasgow, Mont., for a tour of duty of 10 to 16 hours. During that time the train would make a turnaround run covering 250 miles. Petitioner would purchase two meals during the course of a daily trip. Held, the costs of the meals were not deductible under section 162(a)(2), I.R.C. 1954, as petitioner was not "traveling * * * while away from home."
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Fat, Judge:
The Commissioner determined deficiencies in petitioner’s income taxes, as follows:
[[Image here]]
By an amendment to the answer in docket No. 95014, the Commissioner made claim for an increased deficiency in the amount of $219.81. The parties have reached agreement as to the disposition of all issues in this proceeding except one. The remaining issue for decision is whether the costs of meals incurred by petitioner, a railroad brakeman, while on his normal tour of duty are deductible under the provisions of sections 62(2) (B) and 162(a) (2), I.R.C. 1954.
All of the facts have…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Drill v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Osteen v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
- Waters v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1949
- Hyslope v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
- F. M. Williams v. George D. Patterson, District Director of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Mortrud v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. William A. BagleyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1967
- Homer O. Correll and Dorothy Correll v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
- Masline v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1971
- Armstrong v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.