Discussion:Standard Mileage? (construction worker temporary job)
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Standard Mileage? (construction worker temporary job)
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Standard Mileage? (construction worker temporary job)
| 13 January 2009 | |
| Assuming a taxpayers tax home is where he lives. He has a temporary job as an employee 150 miles away. Taxpayer drives back and forth each day. Using the standard mileage allowance he has say 160 dollars in expense to get home and then drive back to the job site the next day.
His employer does not reimburse the employee for any expenses. But does have a deal with a local motel for any of his employees to stay there at reduced rates.. say 60 dollars a nite of which the employee would have to pay. Is there any reason the employee who chooses to drive home each nite would not be allowed to deduct the full 160 dollars. Seems he could, but just wonder if there is a catch. | |
| 13 January 2009 | |
| The problem lies in your first sentence.
A taxpayer's tax home is where he works, not where he lives. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 13 January 2009 |
| What is temporary? I assume it meets the criteria set out in Publication 463.
If so, I see no reason he can't since it is not like the employer would pay the hotel costs. Doesn't sound like a case where the employer's cost burden is being deducted. | |
| 13 January 2009 | |
| It sounds like this is just a part time job and he is commuting. | |
| 13 January 2009 | |
| Is this a temporary assignment for an existing employer or a new job? | |
| 13 January 2009 | |
| I did not take note of "temporary" in my first answer. It is significant.
Is this a temporary job or a temporary job site of a continuing employer? | |
| 13 January 2009 | |
| It isn't "temporary job" it is "temporary location" that allows the taxpayer to take the mileage. If this is his only job then this is commuting not mileage expense. If it is a temp location from his normal job location with this company then it may be deductible. taxea | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| Sounds like commuting to me. If he was there for a day or 2, that's temporary. Where does he usually work? | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| Sorry if the question was not clear. I thought the assumption of his home being his tax home would suffice. In any case, this is a construction worker who works all over (has no regular work location) on jobs that last a few days to maybe several weeks for his employer, who happens to be located in a different area of the State. So, assuming his tax home is where he lives, (that he meets that criteria) then could you see any problem with his driving back and forth and taking the full standard mileage allowance as stated in the original post.
I don't see why not, just wondered if there was a catch in regards to the employer being able to get the employee lodging at less than normal cost. Employee still has to pay for it but chooses to drive back and forth each day instead of staying in the area. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 14 January 2009 |
| Let's let Dan answer our question about if this location meets the definition of a temporary assignment as defined in the publication, or in several Revenue Rulings, before we give a definite answer. My guess is that once he reads the publication, he will have the answer for himself. | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| Discussion:Construction workers - deductible mileage | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| Discussion:Metropolitan Area | |
| January 14, 2009 | |
| Without looking at Kev's links, I seem to recall that a construction worker doesn't have a tax home, and therefore, it's all commuting...but I've been wrong before. | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| that's OK to not read the links, Jeff. No one ever uses the yellow box either.
(there's got to be a fast elephant around here somewhere) | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 14 January 2009 |
| Even better: http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Metropolitan_Area_and_Commuting | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| Can anyone summarize or is there a consensus from all these leads? It would help many to have some conclusion without spending hours trying to read all the posts on the leads that have been cited. | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| My understanding from reading various documents, pubs, court cases, rulings etc. over the years is that the mileage would be deductible if the taxpayer meets the tests for his tax home being where he lives. If a taxpayer has no regular place of work his tax home may be where he lives if certain conditions are met. And mileage to temporary jobs outside his tax home would be deductible.
The only thing that made me think about it when a client was in today (not mine), but I was consulted, was his mentioning that the employer got deals on rooms for the employees working at the jobs if they wanted to stay. This taxpayer elected to drive back and forth each day from home rather than stay in the area of the various jobs. | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| What about "ordinary and necessary."
Setting aside, for the moment, the issues surrounding Temporarily Away From Home or No Regular Place of Work, it seems far from ordinary, and completely unnecessary (not knowing this particular TP's home situation), to travel back and forth every day at a daily cost of ~5 hours in the car. Especially given that a cost-effective alternative exists. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 14 January 2009 |
FYI: From the IRS
Generally, your tax home is your regular place of business or post of duty, regardless of where you maintain your family home. It includes the entire city or general area in which your business or work is located. If you have more than one regular place of business, your tax home is your main place of business. See MAIN PLACE OF BUSINESS OR WORK, later. If you do not have a regular or a main place of business because of the nature of your work, then your tax home may be the place where you regularly live. See NO MAIN PLACE OF BUSINESS OR WORK, later. If you do not have a regular place of business or post of duty and there is no place where you regularly live, you are considered an itinerant (a transient) and your tax home is wherever you work. As an itinerant, you cannot claim a travel expense deduction because you are never considered to be traveling away from home. MAIN PLACE OF BUSINESS OR WORK. If you have more than one place of work, consider the following when determining which one is your main place of business or work. * The total time you ordinarily spend in each place.
* The level of your business activity in each place.
* Whether your income from each place is significant or
insignificant.
EXAMPLE. You live in Cincinnati where you have a seasonal job for 8
months each year and earn $40,000. You work the other 4 months in Miami, also at a seasonal job, and earn $15,000. Cincinnati is your main place of work because you spend most of your time there and earn most of your income there.
FACTORS USED TO DETERMINE TAX HOME. If you do not have a regular or main place of business or work, use the following three factors to determine where your tax home is. 1. You perform part of your business in the area of your main home
and use that home for lodging while doing business in the area.
2. You have living expenses at your main home that you duplicate
because your business requires you to be away from that home.
3. You have not abandoned the area in which both your historical
place of lodging and your claimed main home are located; you have a
member or members of your family living at your main home; or you
often use that home for lodging.
If you satisfy all three factors, your tax home is the home where you
regularly live. If you satisfy only two factors, you may have a tax home depending on all the facts and circumstances. If you satisfy only one factor, you are an itinerant; your tax home is wherever you work and you cannot deduct travel expenses. | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| CrowCPA, I personally don't think my time should be spent summarizing for someone else all of the posts that can easily be found using the yellow search box. The questioner's time should be spent doing the research, that way they'll learn something. I've given them time-saving shortcuts by pointing out where to start. Kind of like when you asked your dad how to spell 'aardvark' and he handed you the dictionary and said "look it up". It wasn't that dad was stupid. It was that dad wanted you to become more self-reliant (less needy). | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| Not only that, Kevin, but wouldn't you say that a valid summary of those articles/discussions would be "it depends" - and then each of the links provides many excellent examples to show how the detailed facts of each case make all the difference? | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 14 January 2009 |
| Tril: In a famous case, Robert Noyce was permitted to deduct the costs of using his own airplane to travel to business locations; ordinary is a very difficult test for IRS to win.
As I have been saying, my concern is meeting the temporary location rules: less than one year, not indefinite,and outside the metropolitan area. | |
| 14 January 2009 | |
| Ordinary and Necessary and Reasonable:
Based on the assumption of a 'reasonable person' and may be ' recurrent' but often is "irregular", and that the expense is 'directly connected' to TP's trade or business. Other term: "common and accepted in .." "appropriate" "helpful" roy: good summary TexCPA 12:20, 14 January 2009 (CST)
| |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 14 January 2009 |
| "An expense is ordinary when the paying thereof is the common and accepted practice in light of the time and place and circumstance." [Welch vs. Helvering]
Then there is Rev. Rul. 70-558 where a Federal employee was entitled the deduct the costs of using his privately owned airplane on business trips to the extent the expenses exceeded the standard rate of reimbursement. Here he will be reimbursed nothing; how does one value a discounted hotel rate as a reimbursement? | |
