John J. Zanath - Page 9




                                        - 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