John Michael Kernan - Page 9

                                        - 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