- 9 -
than they are for a person who can maintain a year-round home.”
Rambo v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 920, 924 (1978). “The purpose of
the ‘away from home’ provision is to mitigate the burden of the
taxpayer who, because of the exigencies of his trade or business,
must maintain two places of abode”. Kroll v. Commissioner, 49
T.C. 557, 562 (1968).
As a general rule, a taxpayer’s “home” for purposes of
section 162(a)(2) is the vicinity of his principal place of
employment, irrespective of where his personal residence is
located. Mitchell v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 578, 581 (1980);
Sanderson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-358. Petitioner was
employed at construction sites in California for all of 1992 and
most of 1993. Thus, under the general rule, petitioner’s tax
home was the vicinity of those sites in California. However,
petitioner relies on an exception to the general rule to argue
that his tax home was Idaho, where his parents resided and where
he lodged when he was physically present in that State.
Under the exception, if the principal place of business is
temporary, and not indefinite, the taxpayer’s personal residence
may be considered the tax home. Peurifoy v. Commissioner, 358
U.S. 59, 60 (1958); Kroll v. Commissioner, supra at 562. If the
taxpayer incurs substantial and continuous living expenses at the
personal residence, he or she may deduct the expenses associated
with traveling to, and living at, the jobsite. Barone v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011