Legal Document

389 U.S. 299 88 Supreme Court Reporter 445 19 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 537 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Homer O. CORRELL et ux. Number 113. Argued Nov. 14, 1967. Decided Dec. 11, Sol, Gen. Erwin N. Griswold, for petitioner. William L. Taylor, Jr., Chattanooga, Tenn., respondents. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Commissioner Internal Revenue has long maintained that a taxpayer traveling on business may deduct cost his meals only if trip requires him to stop sleep or rest. question presented here is validity rule. 2 respondent in this case was salesman wholesale grocery company Tennessee.1 He customarily left home early morning, ate breakfast and lunch road, returned time dinner. In income tax returns 1960 1961, he deducted morning noon as 'traveling expenses' incurred pursuit 'while away from home' under § 162(a)(2) Code 1954.2 Because respondent's daily trips required neither nor rest, disallowed deductions, ruling 'personal, living' expense 2623 rather than travel 162(a)(2). paid tax, sued refund District Court, there received favorable jury verdict.4 Appeals Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Commissioner's rest rule not 'a valid regulation present statute.' 369 Federal Reporter, 2nd 87, 90. order resolve conflict among circuits recurring federal administration,5 we granted certiorari. 388 905, 87 2115, 18 1346. 3 Under 162(a)(2), taxpayers * trade business' total amount 'expended lodging.'6 As result, even who incurs substantial hotel restaurant expenses because special demands receives something windfall, at least part what spends represents personal living other must bear without receiving any deduction all.7 Not surprisingly, therefore, Congress did extend benefits every conceivable situation involving travel. It made lodging deductible course takes 'away home.' problem before us involves meaning limiting phrase. 4 resolving problem, avoided wasteful litigation continuing uncertainty would inevitably accompany purely case-by-case approach whether particular day.8 Rather requiring 'every meal-purchasing take pot luck courts,'9 consistently construed exclude all rest,10 regardless how many cities given have touched,11 miles it covered,12 hours consumed.13 By so interpreting statutory phrase, achieved ease certainty application but also fairness, places one-day travelers similar footing, discriminating against intracity commuters, cannot they eat road. See versus Flowers, 326 465, 66 250, 90 L.Ed. 203. 5 Any area make some arbitrary distinctions,14 avoids obvious inequity permitting New Yorker makes quick Washington back, missing dinner home, merely covers more travels locally finance help Treasury.15 And surely sense one which allow simply greater percentage wheel commuter eats way work block office. 6 nonetheless found 'plain language statute' an insupperable obstacle construction. 89. We disagree. statute—'meals home'—is obviously self-defining.16 extent words chosen by cut either direction, tend support defeat position, statute speaks 'meals lodging' unit, suggesting—at arguably—that contemplated where well.17 Ordinarily, least, finds necessary significantly higher direct result travel,18 might well thought category should be permitted their while road.19 event, certainly recognized, when promulgated had understood its predecessor.20 This thus comes within settled principle 'Treasury regulations interpretations continued change, applying unamended substantially ree nacted statutes, are deemed congressional approval effect law.' Helvering Winmill, 305 79, 83, 59 45, 47, 83 52; Fribourg Nav. Commissioner, 383 272, 283, 86 862, 869, 15 751. 7 Alternatives available.21 Improvements imagined.22 But do sit committee revision perfect administration laws. delegated courts, task prescribing 'all needful rules enforcement' Code. 26 KF62 7805(a). limitless factual variations 'it province appropriate adjustments.' Stidger, 386 287, 296, 1065, 1071, 53. judiciary cases sort begins ends with assuring fall authority implement mandate reasonable manner. challenged been shown deficient score, sustained validity. judgment therefore reversed. 8 Reversed. 9 MARSHALL took no consideration decision case. 10 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK FORTAS, concur, dissenting. 11 home,' my view shrunken 'overnight' administrative construction regulations. 'Overnight' injects element testing deductibility, terms geography. stated Appeals: 12 'In era supersonic travel, factor hardly relevant meal related taxpayer's basis Correll States, 89—90. 13 & N Immigration Nationality Decisions affirm below. Since Mrs. filed joint return, both respondents here. Throughout opinion, however, term 'respondent' refers Correll. '(a) General.—There shall allowed ordinary during taxable year carrying business, including— '(2) (including amounts expended lodging) *.' 1954, (1958 ed.). 'Except otherwise expressly provided chapter, personal, living, family expenses.' 262 262. After denying Government's motion directed verdict, Judge charged 'determine facts not' 'an applied these plaintiffs case.' told consider were 'necessary employee properly perform duties work.' 'Should eaten them carry adequately proximately results 'You instructed need overnight deductible, such roximately involved relation business.' instructions, respondent. denied notwithstanding verdict. below conflicts First Revenue, Bagley, 374 204, accord Eighth Hanson 298 391, reaffirmed Morelan, Cir., 356 199, 208—210. Prior enactment 1921 now allowing exceeded 'any expenditures ordinarily purposes Treas.Reg. 45 (1920 ed.), Article 292, Cum.Bull. 209 (1921). Despite logical appeal, proved difficult administer Treasury Department asked grant 'entire amount' expenditures. Statement Dr. T. S. Adams, Tax Adviser, Department, Hearings H.R. 8245 Senate Committee Finance, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 50, 234—235 Accordingly, 214(a)(1) Act 1921, chapter 136, 42 Statutes-at-Large 239, first included later became n. 2, supra. section amended respect 1962, 4(b), 76 976. nondeductible, see 3, supra, whose home. can bring himself reach noontime although costs more, relates closely does consumed less mobile counterpart. Such Bagley 46 KF6280 A2 U55 176, 183, vacated, 204; 397; evidently case, 207. interpretation, expressed 1940 ruling, I.T. 3395, 1940—2 64, originally known 205. lived Fountain City, Tennessee, employer's place Morristown. His territory restaurants Madisonville, Engelwood, Etowah, Athens, Sweetwater, Lake Caryville, Jacksboro, La Follette, Jellico, eastern Tennessee. seldom traveled farther 55 drove 150 175 daily. employer sales start day. To so, leave City about a.m. usually finished schedule p.m., transmitted orders Morristown, 5:30 p.m. 14 proposed two amici curiae filing briefs behalf exceptional regard. Thus, example, suggests cover those outside 'own town,' 'the metropolitan area' reside. One amicus stresses number 'hours spent principal post duty,' suggesting emphasis placed upon 'outside general Amoroso 193 583. 16 applies very concept 'traveling' physical separation one's house. read phrase broadly completely literal permit render redundant. never woodenly construed. commuter, regarded residence business. 473, 254, More dictionary understand provision involved, appeal language' obviate further 17 207, 10. 'maintain own absent business,' Barnhill 148 913, 917, 159 American Law 1210, 'continuing permanent abode duplicated.' James 308 206. same taxpayer, unlikely incur increased however far go, find lodging. Amicus brief asserts 'those considerable distances (on) jet between York Chicago' spend 'comparable (than) remain base' urges 'substantial distances' entire meals. eating seriously suggested bill mysteriously reflects distance get there. court '(i)n misses point. limited unrelated income-producing activity. ask definition responsive necessity demand impossible. 20 considering 1954 Code, heard plea change disallowing deductions trips. General Revision House Ways Means, 83d pt. 1, 216—219 (1953); 8300 4, 2396 (1954). No resulted. recommending 62(2)(C) employees certain transportation computing adjusted gross income, Finance stated: 'At present, arriving reimbursed overnight. 'Because expenses, incurred, substantial, appears desirable treat like self-employed persons. For reason your committee's though employer. *' S.Rep.No. 1622, (1954) (emphasis added), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News Page 4638. H.R.Rep. 1337, (1954), 4033. discussing 120 (repealed 72 1607 (1958)), policemen up $5 per day allowances, noted that, prevailing rule, police officers could over limit 'for overnight.' H.R.Rep.No. A40 (emphais 4176; 191 4826 added). Thus aware retained precise terminology used 1921. 21 22 See, e.g., 1963 proposal President's Message 88th 98 (1963).

Classification Label: 11