- 10 -
likelihood of Mr. Riley’s return to a NWA position in Minneapolis
depended on NWA’s needs for mechanics there as well as the
choices of more senior mechanics. Mr. Riley did not know how
long he would be in Newark 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. Riley had a tax home in 2003.
Accordingly, Mr. Riley was not away from home in Newark, and the
expenses he incurred while there are not deductible.6
Substantiation of Expenses
We next turn to the substantiation issues to determine
whether petitioners are entitled to deduct the 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.7 Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v.
6Even if we had found that Mr. Riley’s tax home during 2003
was Prescott, Wisconsin, Mr. Riley may not be treated as
temporarily away from home while he worked in Newark because the
position lasted over a year. See sec. 162(a).
7Petitioners 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
(continued...)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007