- 6 -
Weidekamp v. Commissioner, 29 T.C. 16, 21 (1957). Where the
taxpayer has neither a principal place of business nor a
permanent residence, he has no tax home from which he can be
away. His home is wherever he happens to be. Brandl v.
Commissioner, 513 F.2d 697, 699 (6th Cir. 1975), affg. T.C. Memo.
1974-160; Rosenspan v. United States, 438 F.2d 905, 912 (2d Cir.
1971); James v. United States, 308 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1962).
While the subjective intent of the taxpayer is to be
considered in determining whether he has a tax home, for purposes
of section 162(a)(2), this Court and others consistently have
focused more on objective financial criteria. The section is
intended to mitigate the burden of a taxpayer who, because of the
travel requirements of his trade or business, must maintain two
places of abode and, therefore, incur additional living expenses.
Brandl v. Commissioner, supra; Kroll v. Commissioner, supra.
Section 162(a)(2) provides relief to a taxpayer who incurs
“substantial continuing expenses” of a home which are duplicated
by business travel away from home on a temporary basis by
allowing a deduction for the expenses of such travel. A taxpayer
has a “home” for this purpose only when it appears he has
incurred substantial continued living expenses at the permanent
place of residence. James v. United States, supra at 207-208.
Whether petitioners had a tax home is a factual question and
is easily resolved in this case by the fact that petitioners made
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011