Gary M. and Trudy J. Weichlein - Page 17

                                       - 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