- 9 -
Instead, petitioner stated that he "stayed at a friend's place".
Further, petitioner stated that the house in Central Square was
unoccupied and "was just sitting there in 1991." Thus, we
conclude that petitioner's house in Delhi where he and his family
resided was his residence as defined by the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.
Therefore, petitioner was not "away from home" for purposes
of section 162. Accordingly, respondent is sustained on this
issue.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011