- 14 -
On the basis of facts such as these, the taxpayer has often
claimed head-of-household status, on the ground that the taxpayer
"maintains as his home" the house (or other dwelling unit)
occupied by his (or her) relatives or dependents at location 2.
In deciding head-of-household cases arising from this fact
pattern, this Court has consistently held that the taxpayer must
reside in a dwelling or house in order for it to qualify as the
taxpayer's home. For example, in denying head-of-household
status to a taxpayer with respect to the former marital home in
which he no longer resided, we wrote (in W.E. Grace v.
Commissioner, 51 T.C. 685, 688 (1969), affd. per curiam 421 F.2d
165 (5th Cir. 1969)):
It is an elementary rule of statutory
interpretation that "the words of statutes--including
revenue acts--should be interpreted where possible in
their ordinary, everyday senses." Crane v.
Commissioner, 331 U.S. 1, 6 (1947). By providing in
plain language that the household required to be
maintained * * * [under the substantially identical
head of household provision in the 1939 Code] had to be
maintained by the taxpayer "as his home," we think
Congress intended that such household also had to be
the taxpayer's place of abode or house in which he
actually lived. * * *
In W.E. Grace we also considered the legislative history of (and
Income Tax Regulations promulgated under) the head-of-household
provisions. However, our belief that the ordinary, everyday
meaning of a person's "home" was his (or her) place of abode, was
clearly a key factor in our decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011