- 5 -
in Warner v. Commissioner, supra, made the same argument as
petitioners; i.e., that respondent should not be able to make
refunds and then demand repayment. To this the Courts of Appeals
replied: “Alas, the Commissioner, confronted by millions of
returns and an economy which repeatedly must be nourished by
quick refunds, must first pay and then look. This necessity
cannot serve as the basis of an ‘estoppel’.” Gordon v. United
States, supra at 1160 (quoting Warner v. Commissioner, 526 F.2d
at 2).
With respect to the principal issue, whether petitioners are
entitled to a deduction for trade or business expenses, section
162(a)(2) allows deductions for traveling expenses, including
amounts expended for meals and lodging, if the expenses are (1)
ordinary and necessary, (2) incurred while “away from home”, and
(3) incurred in pursuit of a trade or business. Bochner v.
Commissioner, 67 T.C. 824, 827 (1977). Respondent does not argue
that petitioners have failed to satisfy the first and third
tests. Respondent contends that petitioners were not “away from
home” when they incurred the expenses.
As a general rule, a taxpayer’s principal place of
employment is his “tax home”. Kroll v. Commissioner, 49 T.C.
557, 561-562 (1968). An employee without a principal place of
business may treat a permanent place of residence at which he
incurs substantial continuing living expenses as his tax home.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011