- 25 -
Travel expenses in pursuit of business within the
meaning of * * * [sec. 162(a)(2)] could arise only when
the railroad’s business forced the taxpayer to travel
and to live temporarily at some place other than
Mobile, thereby advancing the interests of the
railroad. Business trips are to be identified in
relation to business demands and the traveler’s
business headquarters. The exigencies of business
rather than the personal conveniences and necessities
of the traveler must be the motivating factors. * * *
Id. at 474.
We must determine whether the exigencies of petitioner’s
business rather than the personal conveniences and necessities of
Norman motivated his travel to the Washington, D.C., area, in
order to determine whether any or all of the Bethesda apartment
expenses are traveling expenses deductible by petitioner. There
is no doubt that petitioner had business in the Washington area.
That business included providing Norman’s services to the law
firm, which treated Norman as an employee. Taking together
Norman’s testimony, the fact that the income from the law firm
varied from year to year, and our belief that petitioner reported
that income on its own return, we are prepared to give petitioner
the benefit of the doubt, and we find that Norman was not an
employee of the law firm (but that petitioner did business with
the law firm, selling its consulting services provided by Norman,
petitioner’s employee). To determine whether the exigencies of
petitioner’s business brought Norman to Washington, we must
determine whether Washington was Norman’s principal post of duty.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011