- 19 -
lived with his parents practically without charge in the situs
that he argued was his tax home, petitioner was primarily
responsible for maintaining financially his personal residence,
he had an ownership interest in his personal residence, and he
contributed to his household there in a valuable and
indispensable way. Petitioner also spent a substantial part of
each year at his personal residence. Whereas the taxpayer in
Henderson v. Commissioner, supra, worked for his employer away
from his claimed tax home approximately 85 percent of the year,
petitioner was required by his employer to be away from his
personal residence only 47.4 percent of 1994 and only 56.4
percent of 1996.
Petitioner also had a legitimate reason for maintaining his
personal residence in Freeland while traveling throughout the
world with and for his employer. First, petitioner’s family did
not travel with him while he worked; thus, petitioner was
required to maintain a family residence somewhere. We refuse to
second guess petitioner’s decision to maintain his family
residence in Freeland, instead of moving his family to the
location of his Florida employer or to one of the many cities to
which he traveled. Cf. Leach v. Commissioner, supra. To have a
tax home for purposes of section 162(a), a taxpayer need not
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011