Tracy and Mark both have jobs that take them away from home for long hours. They are not spending the night away but they still require sleep in the middle of their shift in order to remain safe.

Facts: Tracy and Mark both work in positions that take them away from home for extended periods of time thus requiring them to sleep in the middle of their shifts.

Conclusion: If the nature of the taxpayer's employment is such that when away from home, during released time, it is reasonable for him to need and to obtain sleep or rest in order to meet the exigencies of his employment or the business demands of his employment, his expenditures (including incidental expenses, such as tips) for the purpose of obtaining sleep or rest are deductible traveling expenses under Section 162(a)(2).

Analysis: The “Sleep or rest rule” clearly states that even if there is no provision for sleep or rest the time the individual uses to rest is considered necessary to perform their job.

As per Williams V. Commissioner the time used by both individuals for sleep, rest, meals, etc. is deductable. The following is an excerpt from our book which references the tax law and clearly shows that both individuals have the right to claim there meals, lodging, and incidentals.

Shortly after Williams was decided, the Commissioner issued Rev. Rul. 61-221, 1961-2 C.B. 34, which announced his concurrence with the sleep or rest rule as in terpreted in Williams. 9 The Supreme Court in United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299 (1967) [20 AFTR 2d 5845], observed that the rule contemplated a sleep or rest period of sufficient duration that would ordinarily be related to a significant increase in expenses. The Supreme Court acknowledged the rule provided a definite, fair, and ascertainable standard. Id. at 302-303.

The Tax Court in Barry v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1210 (1970), affd. 435 F.2d 1290