John Michael Kernan - Page 8

                                        - 7 -                                         

          611, 614 (1960).  However, there is an exception to this rule               
          where the taxpayer accepts employment away from home if such                
          employment is considered "temporary" as opposed to "indefinite".            
          Commissioner v. Peurifoy, 254 F.2d 483, 486 (4th Cir. 1957),                
          affd. per curiam 358 U.S. 59 (1958).  Where such employment is              
          temporary, the taxpayer's "tax home" does not shift to the situs            
          of the temporary employment.  The taxpayer is regarded as "away             
          from home" while working at the temporary location.  The                    
          underlying purpose for this exception (which allows a deduction             
          for living costs incurred at the temporary job) is that it is               
          unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to move a residence to a                
          temporary location.  Thus, by allowing a deduction for living               
          expenses at the temporary employment location, the burden is                
          mitigated for the taxpayer who incurs duplicate living expenses             
          which result from maintaining the regular place of abode and the            
          place of abode at the temporary location.  However, if a                    
          taxpayer, for personal reasons, chooses to reside in a different            
          vicinity from the vicinity of the principal place of employment,            
          the residence is not recognized as the taxpayer's "tax home".               
          Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (1946); Jones v.                      
          Commissioner, 54 T.C. 734, 740 (1970), affd. 444 F.2d 508 (5th              
          Cir. 1971).                                                                 
               The Court is satisfied from the record that petitioner's               
          home during 1996, for tax purposes, was not Austin, Texas.                  

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011