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:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007