The facts in this case are pretty straightforward. Mr. Burley expected his temporary assignment to last less than one year. In actuality, the assignment lasted longer than one year. The Tax Court denied Mr. Burley's deductions for travel expenses because his assignment in actuality lasted longer than one year. This decision is in direct contradiction to Revenue Ruling 93-86 which provides in part:
"In Situation 3, C at first realistically expected that the work in CI-2would last only 9 months. However, due to changed circumstances occurring after 8 months, it was no longer realistic for C to expect that the employment in CI-2 would last for 1 year or less. Therefore, C's employment in CI-2 is temporary for 8 months, and indefinite for theremaining 7 months. Thus, C's travel expenses paid or incurred in CI-2during the first 8 months are deductible, but C's travel expenses paid or incurred thereafter are nondeductible."
The Tax Court relies on prior case law with no mention of the revenue ruling. I think they got it wrong here.
Comments