Robert and Cheryl McKeown - Page 11
- 10 -
Minneapolis depended on NWA’s needs for mechanics there as well
as the choices of more senior mechanics. Mr. McKeown did not
know how long he would be in Detroit, Newark, or New York 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. McKeown had a tax home in 2003. Accordingly, Mr. McKeown was
not away from home in Detroit, Newark, and New York, and the
expenses he incurred while there are not deductible.
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
the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that these
determinations are erroneous.4 Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290
U.S. 111 (1933). Moreover, deductions are a matter of
4Petitioners do not claim the burden of proof shifts to
respondent under sec. 7491(a). Petitioners also did not
establish they satisfy the requirements of sec. 7491(a)(2). We
therefore find that the burden of proof remains with petitioners.
Page: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Last modified: November 10, 2007