Thomas J. Mitchell and Janice M. Mitchell - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

               Nor was petitioner's tenure in Century City indefinite; it             
          was temporary.  Although respondent notes correctly that                    
          petitioner's work in and around Century City occurred in at least           
          5 different years, and that section 162(a) provides that a                  
          "taxpayer * * * [is not] temporarily away from home during any              
          period of employment * * * [that] exceeds 1 year", we conclude              
          that petitioner's work for ACN in California did not exceed the             
          1-year period referred to in the statute.  Petitioner's work for            
          ACN was on again and off again throughout the relevant years,               
          with ACN continually renewing his engagement with it because of             
          unexpected happenings.  Moreover, petitioner's travel to ACN's              
          offices in Century City and to the printing plants in Riverside             
          and Stillwater was incident to the fact that his employment was             
          based in Orland Park and that he was providing his consulting               
          services out of Orland Park.  Merely because an independent                 
          contractor may return to the same general location in more than 1           
          year does not mean, as respondent asks us to hold, that the                 
          independent contractor is employed in that general location on an           
          indefinite basis.  This is especially true here where petitioner            
          was not restricted to working solely for ACN and actually sought            
          other engagements for which he could provide his consulting                 
          services contemporaneously with the services which he provided to           
               We hold that petitioner's tax home was in Orland Park and,             
          accordingly, that petitioners are entitled to deduct all of the             

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011