- 8 -
(1) The expense must have been ordinary and necessary, (2) the
expense must have been incurred while petitioner was "away from
home", and (3) petitioner must have incurred the expense in the
pursuit of his business. Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465,
470 (1946).
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to which an
appeal in this case would lie, has defined "home" for purposes of
section 162(a)(2) to mean the taxpayer's permanent abode or
residence rather than his business headquarters. Six v. United
States, 450 F.2d 66, 69 (2d Cir. 1971); Rosenspan v. United
States, 438 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1971).
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a deduction for
the rental payments for his Delhi house, which he claims is
temporary, and in which petitioner, his wife, and their daughter
resided.
After a review of the record, we conclude that petitioner is
not entitled to a deduction for rental payments because
petitioner did not incur such expense while away from home.
Petitioner, his wife, and his daughter resided in Delhi
throughout 1991. Petitioner testified that although he still
owned the house in Central Square, neither he nor his family
resided there during any part of 1991 and that his home was in
Delhi. In fact, petitioner stated that when he taught classes at
S.U.N.Y. Oswego, he did not stay at the house in Central Square.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011