Use SqlTransaction & IsolationLevel for lengthy read operation?

I am executing several long-running SQL queries as part of a reporting module. These queries are constructed dynamically at run-time. Depending on the user's input, they may be single or multi-statement, have one or more parameters and operate on one or more database tables - in other words, their form cannot be easily anticipated.

Currently, I am just executing these statements on an ordinary SqlConnection, i.e.

using (SqlConnection cn = new SqlConnection(ConnectionString)) {
    cn.Open();
    // command 1
    // command 2
    // ...
    // command N
}

Because these queries (really query batches) can take a while to execute, I am concerned about locks on tables holding up reads/writes for other users. It is not a problem if the data for these reports changes during the execution of the batch; the report queries should never take precedence over other operations on those tables, nor should they lock them.

For most long-running/multi-statement operations that involve modifying data, I would use transactions. The difference here is that these report queries are not modifying any data. Would I be correct in wrapping these report queries in an SqlTransaction in order to control their isolation level?

i.e:

using (SqlConnection cn = new SqlConnection(ConnectionString)) {
    cn.Open();

    using (SqlTransaction tr = cn.BeginTransaction(IsolationLevel.ReadUncommitted)) {
        // command 1
        // command 2
        // ...
        // command N

        tr.Commit();
    }
}

Would this achieve my desired outcome? Is it correct to commit a transaction, even though no data has been modified? Is there another approach?