- 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