- 5 - necessities”. Commissioner v. Flowers, supra at 474. For purposes of section 162(a), the taxpayer’s principal place of business or employment is generally considered his or her tax home. See Mitchell v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 578, 581 (1980). Accordingly, if a taxpayer chooses for personal reasons to maintain a residence away from his place of employment, expenses for lodging in the vicinity of the principal place of business or employment, which is his or her tax home, are not deductible because the taxpayer is not away from home. See sec. 162(a); Bochner v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 824, 827 (1977); Foote v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1, 4-5 (1976). During 1993, 1994, and 1995 the principal place of business of each petitioner was New York City. During these years, Mrs. Bittner was employed as an operating nurse in New York City, and Mr. Bittner needed to maintain a residence in New York City because of his acting career. Petitioners have failed to present any evidence that they maintained their residence in Dallas for economic or business purposes. Accordingly, we find that petitioners maintained their residence in Dallas out of personal preference and not because of any business necessity. See Commissioner v. Flowers, supra. Mr. Bittner was not away from home when he occupied the apartment in New York City. Any payments Mr. Bittner made toward the cost of maintaining the New York City apartment were payments for maintenance of the familyPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011