- 17 -
expenses paid by an employee for travel while away from home
after March 31, 1996). Each of these revenue procedures
clarified that the use of the M&IE rates was not mandatory and
that a taxpayer could deduct actual allowable expenses if he or
she had adequate records or other supporting documentation. See,
e.g., Rev. Proc. 96-28, sec. 1, 1996-1 C.B. at 686; Rev. Proc.
94-77, sec. 1, 1994-2 C.B. at 825.
Respondent argues primarily that these revenue procedures
have no applicability to this case because, respondent asserts,
petitioner’s employment on the Falcon was not away from home.
Respondent characterizes petitioner as an itinerant, meaning that
he had no tax home. Respondent asserts that a taxpayer may have
a tax home only if he or she incurs duplicative living expenses.
Respondent asserts that petitioner is without a tax home because
he did not incur duplicative living expenses since his employer
furnished him with meals and lodging without charge. Respondent
asserts that petitioner’s claimed incidental expenses were not
duplicative of any expense that he actually incurred as to his
personal residence. Respondent relies primarily on Henderson v.
Commissioner, 143 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1998), affg. T.C. Memo.
1995-559, and Rev. Rul. 73-529, 1973-2 C.B. 37.
We disagree with respondent’s assertion that petitioner had
no tax home. This Court’s jurisprudence holds that an
individual’s tax home is generally the location of his or her
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011