- 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 family
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011