- 7 -
wife and daughters. Petitioner also argued that he occasionally
had to go into the Raytheon office in Manhattan Beach because he
was required to attend safety training, or he had to pick up
supplies. Petitioner has offered no evidence of the frequency,
if any, of these office visits, but they were not every weekend.2
Furthermore, petitioner argued that he was assigned to the
Raytheon office which was his principal place of business and
therefore his tax home. Petitioner may have been
administratively assigned to the Raytheon office; however,
petitioner’s principal place of employment was at the Fremont
project where he was needed Monday through Friday for 27 months.
Based on the record, we find that petitioner’s tax home for
purposes of section 162(a)(2) was in Fremont during the years at
issue. We find that petitioner maintained his residence in
Rowland Heights out of personal preference and not for business
reasons. See Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (1946).
Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are not entitled to claim
deductions for traveling and living expenses paid in connection
2 In petitioners’ posttrial brief, they state for the first
time that petitioner had to bring in his time sheet to the
Raytheon office every Friday. Petitioners offered no evidence at
trial to support this contention, and the record reflects
otherwise.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011