- 21 -
travels and thus does not duplicate substantial, continuous
living expenses for a permanent home maintained for some business
reason.” (Emphasis added.)). The value of lodging and meals
that an employer furnishes to an employee is an item of income
that must be included in the employee’s gross income but for the
application of an exclusionary provision such as section 119
(meals and lodging furnished for the convenience of the
employer). We do not believe that a finding of a tax home for
purposes of section 162(a) turns on whether an employee may
exclude the value of employer-provided lodging and meals from his
or her gross income. An employee who could not exclude the value
of those items from gross income would incur an expense as to
those items, to the extent that his or her personal income tax
was attributable thereto, and that expense would mean that the
employee was paying twice for overlapping lodging and/or meals.
Petitioner’s work schedule also was generally fixed as to
the number of days that he was required to work and allowed to
vacation. Thus, unlike the taxpayer in Henderson v.
Commissioner, 143 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1998), petitioner would not
have avoided a duplication of living expenses during his vacation
had he established his home at other than his personal residence.
Petitioner received neither meals nor lodging from his employer
while he was on vacation. Thus, were petitioner to have lived in
other than his personal residence during that time, he would have
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011