- 15 -
In our earlier decision in Clair Smith v. Commissioner, 40
T.C. 591 (1963), revd. 332 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1964), we held that
a taxpayer who owned two houses did not maintain as her home--and
was not entitled to head-of-household status with respect to--the
house that was not her domicile or principal place of abode. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit--to which an appeal
of this case would lie--reversed our decision in Clair Smith v.
Commissioner, supra, on the ground that although a person may
have only one domicile, nothing in the statute provided that she
could not have two homes. See Clair Smith v. Commissioner, 332
F.2d at 673. We note, however, that the taxpayer in Clair Smith
occupied each of her houses during substantial portions of the
years there at issue: she spent an average of 3-1/3 months per
year at the secondary residence the Court of Appeals held was a
“home”, and only slightly more time (an average of 5 months per
year) at her principal residence (traveling accounted for the
remainder of her time).13
Subsequent to the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Clair
Smith, we have repeatedly denied head-of-household status where
13 We also note that under the statutory language at issue
in Clair Smith v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 591 (1963), revd. 332
F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1964), the "household" the taxpayer was
required to maintain had to be both the "home" of the taxpayer,
and the "principal place of abode" of a qualifying relative or
dependent of the taxpayer. The need to give these two terms
distinct meanings was a major factor in the opinion of the Court
of Appeals that a taxpayer could have two "homes". See Clair
Smith v. Commissioner, 332 F.2d at 673. By contrast, "home" is
the only residentially-related word used in sec. 131.
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