- 5 -
As a general rule, a taxpayer’s principal place of
employment is the taxpayer’s “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 the employee incurs substantial continuing living expenses
as his or her tax home. 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.” Barone
v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 462, 465 (1985), affd. without published
opinion 807 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1986).
Although the subjective intent of a taxpayer is to be
considered in determining whether the taxpayer has a tax home,
for purposes of section 162(a)(2), this Court and others have
consistently focused more on objective criteria. Section
162(a)(2) is intended to mitigate the burden of a taxpayer who,
because of the travel requirements of his or her trade or
business, must maintain two places of abode and, therefore, incur
additional living expenses. Brandl v. Commissioner, 513 F.2d
697, 699 (6th Cir. 1975), affg. T.C. Memo. 1974-160; Kroll v.
Commissioner, supra at 562. In other words, section 162(a)(2) is
intended to provide relief to a taxpayer who incurs “substantial
continuing expenses” of a home that are duplicated by business
travel. See James v. United States, 308 F.2d 204, 207-208 (9th
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007