-11-
taxpayer has no business connections with the area of primary
residence, there is no compelling reason to maintain that
residence and incur substantial, continuous, and duplicative
expenses elsewhere. See Henderson v. Commissioner, 143 F.3d 497,
499 (9th Cir. 1998), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-559; Deamer v.
Commissioner, supra. In that situation, the expenses incurred
while temporarily away from that residence are not deductible.
Bochner v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 824, 828 (1977); Tucker v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 783, 787 (1971).
Respondent asserts that, in 2001 and 2002, petitioner’s
employment with IDA was indefinite, not temporary, and his tax
home was Alexandria. Respondent concludes, therefore, that
petitioner is not entitled to deduct expenses incurred in driving
between Lancaster and Alexandria or for meals and lodging
expenses incurred while staying in Alexandria.
Petitioner contends that respondent made no determination in
the notice of deficiency that Alexandria was his tax home and did
not raise the issue until a few days before the trial.
Petitioners do not explicitly contend that respondent’s argument
is new matter on which respondent bears the burden of proof.
See, e.g., Shea v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 183 (1999). Rather,
petitioners appear to argue that respondent should be precluded
from asserting that Alexandria was petitioner’s tax home because
respondent’s delay in relying upon petitioner’s tax home is
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008