- 4 -
necessary, (2) incurred while away from home, and (3) incurred in
pursuit of a trade or business. Commissioner v. Flowers, supra.
This Court has consistently held that a taxpayer's "home,"
for purposes of the second prong of the Flowers test, is the
vicinity of the taxpayer's principal place of business or
employment, not the taxpayer's personal residence or place of
abode, if such residence or place of abode is at a place
different from the location of the place of employment. Mitchell
v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 578, 581 (1980); Kroll v. Commissioner,
49 T.C. 557, 561-562 (1968); Garlock v. Commissioner, 34 T.C.
611, 614 (1960).
Furthermore, "The exigencies of business rather than the
personal conveniences and necessities of the traveler must be the
motivating factors." Commissioner v. Flowers, supra at 474. In
Flowers, the taxpayer resided in Jackson, Mississippi, but worked
about 200 miles away in Mobile, Alabama. The Court denied his
claimed travel expenses, stating that the expenses were not
incurred in pursuit of the business of his employer.
Had his post of duty been in * * * [Jackson] the cost
of maintaining his home there and of commuting or
driving to work concededly would be non-deductible
living and personal expenses lacking the necessary
direct relation to the prosecution of the business.
* * * Whether he maintained one abode or two, whether
he traveled three blocks or three hundred miles to
work, the nature of these expenditures remained the
same. [Id. at 473.]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011