- 6 -
the second factor for deductibility of the expenses claimed on
their returns for the years in issue.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
5 During the years in issue, only Mr. Ayala was employed by
Sheehan, so only his travel expenses are potentially deductible
as business expenses under sec. 162(a)(2). However, given the
nature of the substantive issue presented by respondent’s
deficiency determination and the manner in which we decide that
issue, we need not consider any allocation of expense between Mr.
and Mrs. Ayala. Accordingly, for convenience, our discussion is
generally cast in terms of petitioners’ tax home rather than just
Mr. Ayala’s.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007