In article <g3usfi$omj$1[at]reader2.panix.com> ,
Arthur Kamlet <-To[at]panix.com> wrote:
- quote -

Unless the travel is deductible and you use actual cost.

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

joetaxpayer wrote:
- quote -

work to do for which I could bill at my usual hourly rate. Otherwise,
I have all the time in the world, enough to last me the rest of my life.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <jK6dnS9jycgJfP_VnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d[at]comcast.com> ,
joetaxpayer <joetaxpayer[at]nospam.com> wrote:
- quote -


But that's a nontaxable $12/hour :^)
--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Harlan Lunsford wrote:

- quote -

In August I wrote about the tradeoff between speed, increasing your MPG,
and the time you lose. The bottom line was that slowing down from 65 to
55 takes average MPG from 27 up to 32, and to go 55 miles, you trade 9
minutes for .47 gal of gas. Now, that's $1.82 or $12/hr. It really
depends how you value your time.

http://www.blog.joetaxpayer.com/archives/25

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

kastnna wrote:
- quote -

go, the more gas (includes taxes!) you save. YOU may at 65+ cross me
going about 55 or so.
- quote -


ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jun 25, 10:47*am, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

Dick I am truly sorry to hear of your unfortunate educational
environment:-)
Harlan, I assume you travel Hwy 280 or I-85, in which case we
regularly cross paths at 65+ MPH.


War Eagle!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Harlan Lunsford <hnslunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

- quote -

I believe this is covered in Regs or Rev rulings. But as
previously noted, I no longer get free text books so I don't
have the cites.

- quote -

Now an auditor who graduated from Bama might ask you if Auburn
is really an institute of higher education? <g> But I'll
pass on that.

Obviously CPE travel is business travel unless it is part of
a ruse to change commuting into business travel.

Examples:
A friend of mine (a CPA) lived and worked in Raleigh. He
was getting a MBA from Carolina and was claiming the courses
as CPE credits. His second trip of the day to the heavenly
confines of Chapel Hill was business travel.

But I knew a real gonif who lived in the Chicago burbs
and attended a morning breakfast meeting about 20 people.
This meeting was organized and had members who made 15
minute presentations of whatever they thought was new
information. He helped create 5-5:30, happy hour meeting
that at one point had 40 attendees. He personally made
sure there were short speechs of daily happening. Thus,
he claimed the cost of his train ticket to and from
Chicago as business travel.

He got audited in late 1983 and needless to say his
deductions were disallowed for all open years. The IRS
took the position that these were ad hoc meetings that
were unrelated to the work he did as an independent
contractor. He was spitting angry. Also needless to say,
he was ignorant enough to meet with the IRS alone because
he was so proud of his scam that he saw no need to pay for
audit representation which is a valid deduction.

I have many humorous stories of this schmuck, but they
are not tax related.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

What is most significant of Soliman v. Commissioner
is that the IRS chose go after Dr. Soliman because
he was the picture perfect example of a home office
deduction by someone who did not generate revenue
from his home office. This was in spite of the fact
that all of his scheduling and recording keeping was
done from his home office.

Dr. Soliman prevailed in the lower courts. But the
IRS took it to Willie & The Supremes because if there
was no home office deduction for Dr. Soliman, there
was no home office deduction for anyone who looked
like him and certainly not for anyone who didn't
look as good as he did.

This ended depreciation, apportionment of rent, travel,
etc. But you could still 1099 furniture and fixtures.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

Thanks for the cite. In Soliman the Supreme Court disallowed the
deduction, overruling both the tax court and the 4th Circuit. They
said,

"Under the Court of Appeals' test, a home office may qualify as the
principal place of business whenever the office is essential to the
taxpayer's business, no alternative office space is available, and the
taxpayer spends a substantial amount of time there. See id., at 54.
This approach ignores the question whether the home office is more
significant in the taxpayer's business than every other place of
business. The statute does not refer to the "principal office" of the
business. If it had used that phrase, the taxpayer's deduction claim
would turn on other considerations. The statute refers instead to the
"principal place" of business. It follows that the most important or
significant place for the business must be determined."

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Dick Adams wrote:
- quote -

a home which is the principal place of business also. One might not
have or even need an office in home, yet the home is the principal
place of business. Example; a painter whose tools are stored in
his truck. Home is principal place of business, so his miles are
tax deductible.

As for me, if I leave home and instead of going to the office, head
straight out of town say to Auburn University (30 miles) for an all
day tax seminar, then I have 60 miles, cause that is outside my
area. This of course has nothing to do with home office, lack of it,
or principal place of business.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Arthur Kamlet <-To[at]panix.com> wrote:

- quote -

The case is Soliman v. Commissioner and it was decided by
Willie & the Supremes by a vote of 8-1. Only Justice
Stevens desented.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

Noting that I haven't gotten a free copy of a current tax
textbook in five years, it is my opinion that the home
office would have to meet the Soliman test, i.e., it is
the place of business from whence you generate your income.

I can imagine an attorney who has an office in the burbs,
home or othewise, being able to deduct ocassional trips to
the court house in center city. Similarly a tax pro could
deduct ocassional trips to the IRS office.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com" <removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

That's what I figured (ok, hoped) you meant. ;-)

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jun 24, 8:44*am, "removeps-gro...[at]yahoo.com" <removeps-
gro...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Sorry, I made a typo. I meant to say

Section 280A calls for exclusive use. But if that is not met, it
should NOT I think disallow the travel mileage allowed under section
162.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <6dff99c9-7568-417b-b2f6-22b8bfcaa86a[at]y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com> ,
removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com <removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -


Two thoughts come to mind --

1. An accountable plan does not turn unallowable expenses into
allowable, deductible, nontaxable reimbursements. (Exception
for M&E percentage)

2. An accountable plan reimburses for expenses having bone fide
business purposes.

--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jun 24, 7:27 am, kam...[at]panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
- quote -

That just means that there is not a part of his house that is used
exclusively for business. So no portion of mortgage interest,
property tax, electricity bill is deductible. However, business
travel miles are still allowed. From 280A(f)(4) -- quoted in a
previous thread --

Nothing in this section shall be construed to disallow any
deduction allowable under section 162(a)(2) (or any deduction
which meets the tests of section 162(a)(2) but is allowable
under
another provision of this title) by reason of the taxpayer's
being away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business
(other
than the trade or business of renting dwelling units).

Section 280A calls for exclusive use. But if that is not met, it
should I think disallow the travel mileage allowed under section 162.

http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Sec._280A
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html


- quote -

Then would an accountable plan work? The S Corp gets the deduction,
the employee is reimbursed and does not have to pay taxes.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <Xns9AC743775AF23avocatstuyahoofr[at]130.133.1.4> ,
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -


More than that.

OP states clearly that the exclusivity test is not met.

And states that it's impossible to meet that test and hints that
everybody does it.

No need to read any more. Case closed.


- quote -

Sure, but that's not what we have here.

I'm not recalling the name of the case of the anesthesiologist
whose work was done at hospitals, and her OIH was used for scheduling,
recording notes, and financial records. Court allowed this and
gave us the regularly and exclusively tests, to which IRS concurred.


- quote -

employer" -- pretty much meaning the employer requires it, and
likely has to be in writing -- although in OP's case S Corp
owners are the actual employees, so it is easier to meet the
convenience test if there's a valid business purpose.


One more technical item: SE employees must file the OIH form
while wage earning employees do not. Since OP seeks OIH in order
to claim mileage, OP would have to generate a Form 2106, which is
probably one of those red flag forms. And any OIH and mileage
claims are subject to the 2% AGI reduction as well as being
disallowed for anyone in AMT territory.
--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

Good example. But I'd appreciate clarification of a nuance. In OP's
case the home office is more a piece of paper than a reality, so going
to where the real work is done is certainly commuting.

But what about the situation where the home office is the actual
primary place of business, but the person goes out on occasion to meet
clients for meetings that last just for an hour or two. It seems to me
that wouldn't be commuting.

As I off base?

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Arthur Kamlet <-To[at]panix.com> wrote:

- quote -

That is an excellent example.

If Union member receives no assignment, travel is
commuting and is not deductible.

If Union member receives an assignment, travel to
that assignment is business travel amd other travel
is commuting.

If Union member is assigned a multi-day assignment
and is not required to be at the Union Hall until
he is looking for another assignment, travel to
the assignment is business travel only on the first
day of the assignment.

A home office is NOT a Union Hall.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

tompaulko <paul.tomko[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

The answer to almost all tax question is "It depends."
You have found one of the clear exceptions. It doesn't
matter what terminology you use, the answer is still no
because the salon, not the temp agency, is the taxpayer's
place of regular work hours.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >