- 9 -
home". Id. In the alternative, respondent contends that, even
if petitioner's tax home was Nashville, only the portion of the
expenses directly attributable to job hunting are deductible.
Generally, a taxpayer's "home", for purposes of section
162(a), is the city or location of his or her principal place of
business and not where his or her personal residence is located.
See Mitchell v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 578, 581 (1980). However,
an employee without a principal place of business may treat a
permanent place of residence at which he incurs substantial
continuing living expenses as his tax home. See Sapson v.
Commissioner, 49 T.C. 636, 640 (1968). Nevertheless, where a
taxpayer has neither a principal place of business nor a
permanent place of residence, a taxpayer has no tax home from
which to be away. Such taxpayers' "homes" are wherever they
happen to be. See Brandl v. Commissioner, 513 F.2d 697, 699 (6th
Cir. 1975), affg. T.C. Memo. 1974-160; Barone v. Commissioner,
supra.
While the subjective intent of taxpayers is to be considered
in determining whether they have tax homes, this Court and others
consistently have held that the objective financial criteria bear
a closer relationship to the underlying purpose of the deduction.
See Barone v. Commissioner, supra at 465. Whether petitioner had
a tax home is a factual question, and the burden of proof is on
petitioner. See Rule 142(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011