- 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