- 17 -17
in Catheys Valley, while employed in the Victorville area, was a
personal decision.
Therefore, we conclude that petitioner is not entitled to
deduct expenses incurred while living and working in the Victorville
area, including expenses for travel back and forth to Catheys
Valley.12 Because we have concluded that petitioner was not "away
from home" during 1990, we need not address respondent's alternative
argument that expenses incurred by petitioner for travel between
Victorville and Catheys Valley were not reasonable.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
12 While respondent has conceded that, if Victorville is
petitioner's tax home, her employment in the Anaheim area was
temporary, the record contains insufficient evidence to identify
any amount of travel expense actually incurred in connection with
such employment, other than petitioner's driving the 73-mile
round trip "almost daily" between Jan. 2 and June 1.
Accordingly, we allow petitioner a mileage deduction based upon
146 miles for 5 days per week for 22 weeks.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: May 25, 2011