- 15 -
location; (2) the degree of activity in each place; and (3) the
relative proportion of taxpayer's income derived from each place.
See Markey v. Commissioner, 490 F.2d 1249, 1255 (6th Cir. 1974),
revg. T.C. Memo. 1972-154; Montgomery v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.
175, 180 (1975), affd. 532 F.2d 1088 (6th Cir. 1976); Sherman v.
Commissioner, 16 T.C. 332 (1951); Sargent v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1984-390. Although no single factor is dispositive,
particular emphasis sometimes is placed on the amount of time
spent by a taxpayer at a given location. See Markey v.
Commissioner, supra at 1252. In general, a taxpayer is required
to establish his tax home at his major duty post so as to
minimize the amount of business travel away from home that must
be undertaken. See Wills v. Commissioner, 411 F.2d 537, 540 (9th
Cir. 1969), affg. 48 T.C. 308 (1967).
Petitioner spent 287 days in Los Angeles during 1994 but
only 25 days in Memphis. Petitioner's degree of activity in
connection with Bellmark in Los Angeles during 1994 far exceeded
the degree of any other activity conducted by petitioner during
that year, including any Memphis activity. Petitioner's nearly
full-time efforts during 1994 were devoted to Bellmark in Los
Angeles. Finally, petitioner earned $97,200 from his Los Angeles
activity for 1994 but only $4,000 from his Memphis activity in
that year. Thus, the Court finds that petitioner's principal
place of business during 1994 was Los Angeles.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011