- 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 madePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011