Benjamin C. Kent - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         
          2(b)(3)(ii), (c)(1), Income Tax Regs.  A taxpayer shall be                  
          considered as maintaining a household only if he or she pays more           
          than one-half of the cost thereof for the taxable year.  Sec.               
          1.2-2(d), Income Tax Regs.                                                  
               In the present case, respondent determined that petitioner             
          was not entitled to head-of-household filing status for 1999 and            
          2000.  Petitioner was married to Vivian Eastman-Kent (hereinafter           
          Mrs. Eastman-Kent) during the years in issue.  We have also                 
          sustained respondent’s determination that Bennard Kent was not              
          petitioner’s dependent.  Either ground precludes petitioner from            
          being entitled to head-of-household filing status.  Respondent’s            
          determination is sustained.4                                                
          3.  Moving Expenses                                                         
               Section 217 permits a deduction for “moving expenses paid or           
          incurred during the taxable year in connection with the                     
          commencement of work by the taxpayer as an employee or as a self-           
          employed individual at a new principal place of work.”  The term            
          “moving expenses” does not include any expenses for meals.  Sec.            
          217(b)(1).  The term also does not include either the cost of               
          pre-move househunting trips or the cost of temporary living                 


               4  Respondent’s determination that petitioner is entitled to           
          filing status of single is inconsistent with the findings in this           
          record.  However, respondent does not argue that petitioner’s               
          filing status is married filing separately or assert an increase            
          in deficiency as a result of these findings.  We therefore do not           
          disturb, and indeed accept, respondent’s determination.                     




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011