- 7 -
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
Cir. 1962); Kroll v. Commissioner, supra at 562. When a taxpayer
continuously travels for work and does not have substantial,
duplicative, continuous living expenses for a permanent home
maintained for some business reason, the taxpayer has no tax
home. Henderson v. Commissioner, 143 F.3d 497, 499 (9th Cir.
1998), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-559; James v. United States, supra.
Most significantly in this case, petitioners bore no
expenses in maintaining a home in addition to their travel
trailer. Notwithstanding their very real ties to California,
petitioners bore no duplicative living expenses. They did not
make mortgage payments, pay regular utilities costs, or regularly
pay for running a household other than the one in which they
resided: The travel trailer. In other words, expenses incurred
in respect of the ancestral home in Vallejo were incurred for the
benefit of Mr. Ayala’s sister and not because of the exigencies
of Mr. Ayala’s business travel. Make no mistake: Petitioners’
financial support of Mr. Ayala’s sister was extremely laudable.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007