John Michael Kernan - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         

          consisted essentially of petitioner's meals and other living                
          expenses in Memphis, including rent on the Memphis apartment and            
          the expenses related thereto, the cost of the airplane and the              
          flying lessons, repairs to the plane, insurance, and the                    
          traveling expenses incurred prior to purchase of the plane.2                
               Respondent's position is that petitioner's tax home during             
          1996 was Memphis, Tennessee, and, therefore, the expenses at                
          issue were not incurred away from home within the intent and                
          meaning of section 162(a)(2).  Petitioner's position is that his            
          business activity at Memphis, Tennessee, was temporary and not              
          permanent or indefinite, and the expenses he incurred there are             
          deductible under section 162(a)(2).                                         
               This Court has consistently held that a taxpayer's "home"              
          for purposes of section 162(a)(2) is the vicinity of the                    
          taxpayer's principal place of business or employment and not                
          where the taxpayer's personal residence or place of abode is                
          located, if such residence or place of abode is at a place                  
          different from the location of the place of employment.  Mitchell           
          v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 578, 581 (1980); Kroll v. Commissioner,            
          49 T.C. 557, 561-562 (1968); Garlock v. Commissioner, 34 T.C.               

               2    Of the total amount claimed, $18,150 represented the              
          cost of the plane that petitioner deducted pursuant to sec. 179,            
          Election To Expense Certain Depreciable Assets.  Petitioner, at             
          trial, conceded a $2,527 adjustment in the notice of deficiency             
          disallowing a deduction for clothing expenses.                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011