- 8 -
As discussed above, petitioner’s former residence for
purposes of section 217 was New York City. Therefore, we hold
that petitioner is not entitled to deduct his travel expenses
from Zurich to San Francisco. See sec. 217(b)(1)(B).5
C. Cost of Travel for Mrs. Bartsch from Switzerland to
San Francisco
Mrs. Bartsch moved to Berkeley to enroll in a clinical
residency program at Stanford University. Mrs. Bartsch did not
move to Berkeley in connection with the commencement of work as
an employee. Accordingly, Mrs. Bartsch’s travel cost from Zurich
to San Francisco is not deductible under section 217(a).
In addition, section 217(b)(2) provides that a taxpayer may
deduct the expenses incurred in moving a member of the taxpayer’s
household if such individual has both the former residence and
the new residence as his principal place of abode. See also sec.
1.217-2(b)(10)(i), Income Tax Regs. A member of the taxpayer’s
household includes any individual residing at the taxpayer’s
residence who is neither a tenant nor an employee of the
5 Although petitioner’s travel expenses from New York City
to San Francisco might otherwise be a deductible expense under
sec. 217(b)(1)(B), petitioner has failed to substantiate such an
expense. Petitioner offered no documentary evidence, such as a
canceled check, receipt, credit card statement, or airline
ticket, nor does the record negate the possibility that some
portion of petitioner’s travel expenses might have been subject
to reimbursement. Accordingly, we decline to invoke the rule in
Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930), to estimate
the travel expense to which petitioner might be entitled because
the record provides no basis for making such an estimate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011