- 22 -
had to pay for those living quarters and his meals there as well
as the cost of his personal residence and the meals which his
family consumed at the personal residence. According to
respondent, an employee such as petitioner can never have a tax
home because he continually travels to different cities during
his employment. We disagree that such continual travel, in and
of itself, serves to disqualify a taxpayer from having a tax home
for purposes of section 162(a). Regardless of where a taxpayer
performs most of his or her work, the fact that he or she
maintains financially a fixed personal residence generally means
that he or she has a tax home someplace. See James v. United
States, 308 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1962) (a taxpayer's permanent
residence is his or her tax home if the taxpayer has no principal
place of employment, is currently working away from that
residence, and incurs substantial continuing living expenses at
the residence); see also Leach v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 20
(1949). Because petitioner incurred throughout the subject years
substantial living expenses in maintaining his personal
residence, his personal residence was his tax home for purposes
of section 162(a). Cf. Ireland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-
386.
Respondent’s reliance on Rev. Rul. 73-529, 1973-2 C.B. 37,
is misplaced. In addition to the fact that revenue rulings are
not binding on this Court, see Sklar, Greenstein & Scheer, P.C.
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