- 13 - from his home is allowed to deduct the costs of meals and lodging at his temporary job site on the theory that he is "away from home". Tucker v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 783, 786 (1971). As discussed previously, the purpose of this rule is to mitigate the hardship suffered by taxpayers who must maintain two places of abode and therefore incur duplicate living expenses. See Barone v. Commissioner, supra. However, an employee who accepts employment of an indefinite duration cannot deduct living costs at the distant job site. See Peurifoy v. Commissioner, 358 U.S. 59 (1958). In addition, when a husband and wife are employed or conduct business indefinitely in two widely separated locations, they cannot deduct living expenses incurred at either site. See Foote v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1 (1976). Petitioner has not established that his job in El Paso was temporary. He offered no evidence that the teaching position was for a limited time after which he intended to return to Nashville. On the contrary, the entire record indicates that El Paso had become petitioner's principal place of business following his move from Las Vegas. Petitioner arrived in El Paso in late July for a job commencing on August 1, 1995. As of September 8, 1997, 2 years after the job commenced, petitioner continued to reside in El Paso. Accordingly, petitioners are not entitled to deduct the $5,420 in living expenses as temporary living expenses.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011