Travis and Jayne Sanderson - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
               There is an exception to the general rule.  A taxpayer may             
          claim his family residence as his home in situations where the              
          taxpayer is away from home on a temporary, rather than an                   
          indefinite basis.  Peurifoy v. Commissioner, 358 U.S. 59, 60                
          (1958).  Petitioner contends that his home for section 162(a)(2)            
          purposes was his Arlington family residence and that he was                 
          temporarily away from his home while working in Seguin, Texas.              
               Petitioners contend that petitioner's employment at Motorola           
          was temporary rather than indefinite because petitioner always              
          intended to pursue career opportunities in other locations.                 
          Additionally, petitioners contend that Motorola hired petitioner            
          for a single work project and that petitioner had no intent, and            
          no option, to remain with Motorola after the completion of that             
          work project.                                                               
               Petitioners’ contentions are not supported by the evidence.            
          Petitioner's employment agreement with Motorola does not                    
          reference a particular work project nor a specific time limit for           
          petitioner's employment.  Petitioner signed an employment                   
          agreement which created an open-ended, at-will employer/employee            
          relationship with Motorola for an indefinite period of time.2               

          2  Petitioners, as an alternative argument, contend that                    
          petitioner was an independent contractor for Motorola.  As near             
          as we can understand it, petitioners' contention seems to be that           
          Motorola hired petitioner as an independent contractor for one              
          discrete work project, and petitioner's job was therefore                   
          temporary in nature, and that as an independent contractor,                 
          petitioner's income should have been reported on Schedule C and             
          he would have been entitled to deduct his unreimbursed travel               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011