- 13 -
same community as housing available to the public. The assigned
housing units were interspersed throughout Alice Springs and were
not separated into gated communities.
Section 1.119-1(d)(5), Income Tax Regs., provides that a
cluster of housing units does not satisfy section 119(c)(2)(C) if
it is adjacent to or surrounded by substantially similar housing
available to the general public. Indeed, a public road
accessible to the general public ran through petitioner’s
neighborhood. Moreover, we do not regard living in a residential
suburb as fitting into the common parlance of the term “camp”.
In short, petitioner’s lodging was not in a camp within the
meaning of section 119(c).
B. Deduction of Value of Lodging
Petitioner’s attempt to deduct the value of lodging
furnished to him is unavailing. First, petitioner did not incur
any lodging expense. Second, even if he did, section 262(a)
generally prohibits the deduction of personal, living, or family
expenses. To the extent that section 162(a)(2) may provide a
limited exception to this general prohibition, petitioner was not
traveling while away from his tax home within the meaning of that
section. See generally United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299
(1967); Peurifoy v. Commissioner, 358 U.S. 59 (1958);
Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (1946).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007