- 8 -
Petitioner terminated his employment there and thereafter
incurred no further living expenses at Austin. The record is
clear that petitioner left his employment at Austin to accept the
contract at Memphis, Tennessee, which would be nearer to his
girlfriend at Knoxville, Tennessee. Since petitioner left his
home at Austin, Texas, the site of his employment became his tax
home. The record is clear that petitioner's choice of Knoxville,
Tennessee, as a residence was solely for personal reasons and was
in no way related to the exigencies of his contract with Josten's
at Memphis. The general rule is that a taxpayer's home, under
section 162(a)(2), is his abode at or near the vicinity of his
principal place of employment. Coombs v. Commissioner, 608 F.2d
1269, 1274 (9th Cir. 1979), affg. in part and revg. and remanding
in part 67 T.C. 426 (1976). It is immaterial whether
petitioner's contract at Memphis, Tennessee, was temporary or
indefinite because those distinctions are relevant only when the
taxpayer maintains a well-established home and is away from it.
United States v. Mathews, 332 F.2d 91, 93 (9th Cir. 1964). The
Court holds, therefore, that the expenses at issue were personal
expenses under section 262 that are not deductible under section
162(a)(2). Respondent, therefore, is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011