Christopher D. and Kristie M. Farran - Page 11

                                       - 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