- 8 -
as deductions were incurred while traveling away from his tax
home. He asserts that his “lifetime homestead” is at his
parents’ residence in Aliquippa. Section 162(a) allows as a
deduction “traveling expenses * * * while away from home in the
pursuit of a trade or business”. An individual’s tax home under
this provision generally is the individual’s principal place of
business, not the location of his personal residence. Mitchell
v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 578, 581 (1980). An exception exists
under which an individual’s tax home is his personal residence if
his principal place of business is temporary rather than
indefinite. Peurifoy v. Commissioner, 358 U.S. 59, 60 (1958).
However, as this Court has previously stated:
An obvious precondition to petitioner’s being “away from
home” is that he have a home to be away from. In the
context of section 162(a)(2), petitioner must show that he
incurred substantial living expenses at a permanent
residence. This requirement is in accord with the purpose
underlying section 162(a)(2), to mitigate the burden falling
upon a taxpayer who, because of the exigencies of his or her
trade or business, must maintain two places of abode and
thereby incur additional and duplicate living expenses.
Lichtenberger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-370, affd. without
published opinion 789 F.2d 919 (7th Cir. 1986).
Petitioner’s employment was apparently temporary. However,
we find that he did not have a tax home in Aliquippa within the
context of section 162(a)(2) because he did not incur substantial
living expenses while there. On the contrary, his presence there
was purely personal in nature, and his parents, not petitioner,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011