Thomas J. Mitchell and Janice M. Mitchell - Page 4

                                                - 4 -                                                  

                  We begin with respondent’s determination that petitioner’s                           
            tax home was in Century City.  The thrust of respondent’s                                  
            position on this issue was that petitioner’s house was in                                  
            Illinois, and, pursuant to section 162(a), that his work in and                            
            around Century City was considered indefinite because it occurred                          
            in at least 5 different years.  Petitioner’s tax home would have                           
            been in the Century City area if his work there was indefinite,                            
            as opposed to temporary.  See Kroll v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 557,                          
            561-562 (1968), and the cases cited therein.                                               
                  We do not believe that respondent’s position on this issue                           
            was unreasonable in either fact or law.  As respondent points out                          
            in respondent’s memorandum, our Memorandum Opinion in this case,                           
            Mitchell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-283, was the first to                            
            apply a 1992 amendment to section 162(a) to the case of an                                 
            independent contractor such as petitioner.  In accordance with                             
            that amendment, a taxpayer “shall not be treated as being                                  
            temporarily away from home during any period of employment if                              
            such period exceeds one year".  We agree with respondent that it                           
            was not unreasonable for him to have interpreted this amendment                            
            adversely to petitioners under the facts herein.  See Estate of                            
            Wall v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 391 (1994).                                                 
                  As to respondent’s position on the applicability of the                              
            accuracy-related penalties, we conclude differently.  Respondent                           
            sets forth in respondent’s memorandum no legitimate justification                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011