Fausner v. Commissioner
Headline: Court bars a commercial pilot from deducting his long car commute for carrying work bags, upholding that ordinary commuting costs are personal and not deductible, with only limited exceptions for special job tools.
Holding:
- Prevents commuters from deducting routine car travel costs as business expenses.
- Allows deductions only when transporting distinct, job-required tools or materials.
- Affirms lower courts’ denial of this pilot’s full commuting deduction.
Summary
Background
Donald Fausner, a commercial airline pilot, drove about 84 miles round trip between home and work and sometimes carried a flight bag and an overnight bag. He tried to deduct the entire cost of that car travel as an ordinary business expense under the tax code. The Tax Court denied the deduction, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Two other federal appeals courts had allowed partial deductions in similar cases, but the Fifth Circuit declined to follow them here.
Reasoning
The central question was whether ordinary commuting costs become deductible simply because the worker carries work-related items in the car. The Court explained that the tax code generally disallows personal living expenses, and commuting is treated as a personal cost. Because Fausner would have driven to work even without the bags, the Court found no reasonable way to split the total car expense into a nondeductible commuting part and a deductible business part. The opinion noted a limited contrast: when a taxpayer transports job-required tools or materials, an allocation might be possible under other guidance, but that situation did not apply in this case. The Court granted review and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings.
Real world impact
People who drive regularly to a fixed workplace cannot deduct routine commuting costs even if they carry incidental work items like bags. Only situations involving distinct, job-required tools or materials may allow some deductible allocation. This decision leaves the tax treatment of ordinary commuting unchanged.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Blackmun stated he would have granted review and set the case for oral argument, but the Court otherwise affirmed the lower-court decision.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?