- 23 -
v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 135, 142 (1999); see also Christensen
v. Harris County, 526 U.S. , , 120 S. Ct. 1655, 1662-1663
(2000) (the interpretation that an agency reaches without formal
notice and comment rulemaking is entitled to “respect” only when
it has the “power to persuade”), that ruling is unpersuasive as
applied to the facts herein. The ruling applies ostensibly to
outside salesmen, providing examples which distinguish (1)
outside salesmen who are considered to be itinerants because they
do not have a home or regular place of employment from (2)
outside salesmen who may be regarded as having a home to be away
from. Petitioner is neither an outside salesman nor an
itinerant. He is a professional seaman who accepted employment
away from his personal residence, most likely because he could
earn his living at his trade more profitably than if he attempted
to do so in the area of his personal residence. He accepted that
employment with the understanding that he would travel at
designated times to where the Falcon was docked and captain the
Falcon for a fixed time. Our finding that petitioner has a tax
home regardless of this revenue ruling is further solidified by
noting that respondent does not contest petitioner’s right to
deduct as travel expenses the other reported travel expenses
which he incurred with respect to his employment.
Nor do we agree with respondent that petitioner has not
established that he paid incidental expenses during his
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