- 11 -
Minneapolis depended on NWA’s needs for mechanics there as well
as the choices of more senior mechanics. Mr. Farran did not know
how long he would be in Detroit, Chicago, or Boston or where he
might go next. It was not foreseeable that he would be able to
return to Minneapolis at any time due to the seniority system.
Thus, we conclude there was no business reason for petitioners
to maintain a home in the Minneapolis area. Petitioners kept the
family residence in the Minneapolis area for purely personal
reasons. Petitioners have failed to prove that Mr. Farran had a
tax home in 2003. Accordingly, Mr. Farran was not away from home
in Detroit,4 Chicago, and Boston, and the expenses he incurred
while there are not deductible.5
Substantiation of Expenses
We next turn to the substantiation issues to determine
whether petitioners are entitled to deduct any remaining
expenses. We begin by noting the fundamental principle that the
Commissioner’s determinations are generally presumed correct, and
4Even if we had found that Mr. Farran’s tax home during 2003
was Farmington, Minnesota, Mr. Farran may not be treated as
temporarily away from home while he worked in Detroit because the
position lasted over a year. See sec. 162(a).
5It is unclear from the record whether petitioners are also
claiming travel expenses with respect to Mr. Farran’s position
with Gulfstream Aerospace in Georgia. Petitioners have
introduced no testimony or evidence with regard to Mr. Farran’s
employment in Georgia, and we must therefore conclude that
petitioners have failed to prove that Mr. Farran was away from
home when he incurred travel expenses in Georgia.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007