- 9 -
821 (5th Cir. 1976); sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.; see also
sec. 1.162-17(d), Income Tax Regs.
While the parties disagree as to whether or not petitioners
have adequately substantiated the amounts they are now claiming
as deductions, petitioners have failed in any event to meet their
burden of showing that they are entitled to a deduction pursuant
to section 162(a)(2).
The purpose of the “away-from-home” deduction is “to
mitigate the burden of the taxpayer who, because of the
exigencies of his trade or business, must maintain two places of
abode and thereby incur additional and duplicate living
expenses.” Kroll v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 557, 562 (1968). An
obvious precondition to petitioners’ being away from home is that
they have a home. Bochner v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 824, 828
(1977). This means that petitioners must have incurred
substantial continuing living expenses at a permanent place of
residence and also have paid the expenses incurred in connection
with their employment while on the road. Brandl v. Commissioner,
supra at 699; see also James v. United States, 308 F.2d 204 (9th
Cir. 1962); Bochner v. Commissioner, supra. One who has neither
a principal place of business nor a permanent residence is
considered an itinerant. Michel v. Commissioner, 629 F.2d 1071,
1073-1074 (5th Cir. 1980), affg. T.C. Memo. 1977-345. An
itinerant may not deduct expenses under section 162(a)(2),
because he is never considered to be “away from home”. Id. at
1073.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011