- 16 -16
Petitioner's only employer from 1988 through all of 1990 was
Fontana or its sister corporation, Vernon. While petitioner did
work in Anaheim for a short period, she spent a majority of taxable
year 1990 in Victorville. We find that petitioner's principal place
of business in 1990 was Victorville, California. However, because
she lacked any business ties to Catheys Valley, she was not "away
from home" when she was living and working in the Victorville area.
See Tucker v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 783, 787 (1971).
Petitioner maintains that her employment with Fontana in the
Victorville area was temporary because she intended to remain in the
area for a short period of time. In addition, petitioner contends
that she worked at a series of temporary jobs, always returned to
Catheys Valley whenever possible, and had maintained a residence in
Catheys Valley since 1978. However, because she has failed to show
that she had any business prospects or ties in Catheys Valley, her
work in Victorville did not take her "away from home" for purposes
of section 162(a)(2).
Petitioner's ownership of a residence in Catheys Valley is not
enough to justify a decision in petitioner's favor. To do so would
place petitioner's home where her heart lies and render section
162(a)(2) a vehicle by which to deduct the full spectrum of one's
personal and living expenses. See Bochner v. Commissioner, 67 T.C.
824, 828-829 (1977). Petitioner's decision to retain her residence
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011