- 15 -
condominium as his “home” does not satisfy the requirements of a
tax home within the meaning of section 162(a)(2).
On the basis of the record, petitioner was an itinerant for
purposes of section 162(a)(2). Therefore, his place of residence
follows him to his place of employment. See Michel v.
Commissioner, 629 F.2d at 1073-1074. Although petitioner may
have maintained his “business headquarters” in Colorado and had
all his compensation wired to his business bank account in
Colorado, his principal place of employment was in Australia.
Indeed, all of the expenses at issue were incurred for
petitioner’s consulting services performed in Australia, not in
Colorado. Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner’s tax home,
for purposes of section 162(a)(2) for the relevant time period,
was Australia. We thus sustain respondent’s determination.
Conclusion
We have considered all of the other arguments made by
petitioner, and, to the extent that we have not specifically
addressed them, we conclude that they are without merit.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011