Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Fausner v. Commissioner
413 U.S. 838
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1973-10-09
- Topic
- bankruptcy
noting a situation in which an allocation of costs may be made between personal and business expenses | need to carry incidentals of work while commuting doesn’t transform commute costs from personal into business expenses | “[d]eeply ingrained in the whole tax structure ... is the basic proposition that the cost of going to and from home and an established place of business is a nondeductible personal expenditure” | “Congress has determined that all taxpayers shall bear the expense of commuting to and from work without receiving a deduction for that expense” | " We cannot read section 262 of the Internal Revenue Code as excluding such expenses from 'personal' expenses" | " We cannot read section 262 of the Internal Revenue Code as excluding such expense from 'personal' expenses" | expenses of driving to work treated as personal expenses where taxpayer would have driven to work anyway even if he had not transported job-related tools and materials | expenses of driving to work treated as personal expenses where taxpayer would have driven to work anyway even if he had not transported job-related tools and materials | which involved the present taxpayer who then lived in New York | “all taxpayers shall 4 A provision like this could explain why Mr. Evans was required to sign the book in Wenatchee to be referred for work in Quincy. DECISION TC-MD 180391G 7 of 15 bear the expense of commuting to and from work without receiving a deduction for that expense”
Citator
- Cited by
- 127 opinions
Petitioner Donald Fausner, a commercial airlines pilot, who regularly traveled by private automobile from his home to his place of employment and back again, a round trip of approximately 84 miles, sought to deduct the entire cost of commuting under § 162 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, on the theory that his automobile expenses were incurred to transport his flight bag and overnight bag and thus constituted ordinary and necessary business expenses. It is not disputed that petitioner would have commuted by private automobile regardless of whether he had to transport his two bags. The Tax Court disallowed the deduction in toto. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Tax Court. 472 F. 2d 561.
This issue has been addressed by two other circuits, Sullivan v. Commissioner, 368 F. 2d 1007 (CA2 1966), and Tyne v. Commissioner, 385 F. 2d 40 (CA7 1967). Both of these circuits concluded that some allocable portion of the expenses incurred could be deducted as an ordinary and necessary business expense. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to follow those cases on the *839 ground that there was no rational basis for any allocation between the nondeductible commuting component and the deductible business component of the total expense.
As the Court of Appeals indicated, Congress has determined that all taxpayers shall bear the expense of commuting to and from work without receiving a deduction for that expense. We cannot read § 262 of the Internal Revenue Code 1 as excluding such expense from “personal” expenses because by happenstance the taxpayer must carry incidentals of his occupation with him.' Additional expenses may at times be incurred for transporting job-required tools and material to and from work. 2 Then an allocation of costs between “personal” and “business” expenses 3 may be feasible. But no such allocation can be made here.
We grant the petition for certiorari and affirm the judgment below.
Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for oral argument.