- 9 -
Petitioner was employed at Mag for more than 2 years as of
the end of 1994. Petitioner never established that this
employment initially was temporary or for a reasonably short
period. Therefore, when petitioner moved to Ontario for
employment with Mag, his “home” shifted to Ontario.
Consequently, while in Ontario, he was not “away from home”.
Moreover, petitioner was not maintaining two households since his
ex-wife was the tenant paying the rent at the Aliso Viejo
residence. Accordingly, petitioner’s living expenses in Ontario
are not deductible under section 162(a)(2).
Petitioner’s transportation expenses between Ontario and
Aliso Viejo are not deductible business expenses. Petitioner’s
trips to Aliso Viejo were for the personal purpose of visiting
his children. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to deduct
the claimed employee business expenses.
Dependency Exemption
On his 1994 return, petitioner claimed his son Douglas as a
dependent. He indicated on his return that Douglas did not live
with him due to separation or divorce. At trial, petitioner
testified that he supported Douglas by paying child support and
by purchasing a car for him. Petitioner did not state the age of
Douglas in 1994, but he did mention that Douglas was attending
college.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011