- 20 -
maintain a residence in a city in which he or she actually
works.6 See id.
Second, unlike the taxpayer in Henderson v. Commissioner,
supra, petitioner would have incurred a substantial out-of-pocket
duplication of lodging and meal expenses while he worked but for
the fact that his employer furnished him with those items at no
charge. Had petitioner’s employer not done so, petitioner would
have incurred the duplicative out-of-pocket expenses which
respondent argues are necessary for a finding of a tax home.
Contrary to respondent’s assertion, we do not believe that a
finding of a tax home for purposes of section 162(a) turns on
whether an employer provides lodging and meals to an employee
without charge as part of the employee’s compensation package.
See Henderson v. Commissioner, supra at 499 (“A taxpayer may [as
opposed to will] have no tax home * * * if he continuously
6 As a point of fact, however, petitioner did work near his
personal residence on a few occasions. Respondent points to the
parties’ stipulation that petitioner’s “employer did not require
petitioner Marin Johnson to perform services as a ship master in
the Freeland, Washington area during 1994 or 1996” and concludes
that all of petitioner’s work was far from his personal
residence. We do not read this stipulation as broadly as
respondent. To be sure, petitioner worked near his personal
residence from Oct. 20 through 23, 1996, and on Dec. 13, 1996.
Respondent also places undue weight on the fact that Crowley did
not require that petitioner vacation at his personal residence,
thus leaving petitioner free to vacation elsewhere. The fact
that Crowley did not mandate that petitioner stay at his personal
residence during his vacation carries no weight as to whether he
had a tax home for purposes of sec. 162(a).
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011