- 11 -
414-1/2 Monroe to store their furniture and their self-serving
statements of their intent that Port Clinton be their tax home.
The objective facts in the record show that petitioners
treated both 414 and 414-1/2 Monroe as rental property on
Schedule E of their 1990, 1991, and 1992 Federal income tax
returns. Furthermore, petitioners deducted the interest paid on
their travel trailer, not the interest paid on 414-1/2 Monroe, as
home mortgage interest on their 1991 and 1992 returns. During
1990, 1991, and 1992, petitioners did not earn income from work
at nuclear plants within commuting distance of Port Clinton.
Petitioners incurred their normal living expenses at each
place they stayed. See Scotten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1966-
206, affd. 391 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1968). Petitioners could not
have resided more than 2 weeks at 414-1/2 Monroe in 1990. During
1991, petitioners could not have resided more than 4 weeks,
8 weeks, and 2 weeks at different intervals at 414-1/2 Monroe.
Petitioners did not reside at 414-1/2 Monroe during 1992.
During 1990, 1991, and 1992, petitioners were itinerants,
literally (with respect to their trailer in 1991 and 1992) and
figuratively carrying their home with them as they traveled from
job to job. Thus, petitioners did not incur additional and
duplicate living expenses, and they are not entitled to deduct
any expenses under section 162(a)(2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011