- 30 -
Thus, where, at the time a determination of abode must be
made, it cannot be determined whether a person’s absence is
permanent, the absence will be ignored if it is reasonable to
assume that the person will return.1 For instance, assume that
petitioner had been arrested on strong evidence of child abuse.
At the time of her arrest, or at any time thereafter while the
household still existed and she remained in jail, no one could
say with certainty that her absence was permanent. Given the
strong evidence of child abuse, however, it would be reasonable
to assume that her absence would be permanent, no matter how the
charges against her were resolved. In contrast, it might be
unreasonable to make the same assumption if the only charge
against her were that she had stolen money that she had expended
on support for her children.2
D. Hein v. Commissioner
In Hein v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 826 (1957), a Court-
reviewed opinion, we held that a lack of a showing of the intent
permanently to abide elsewhere is dispositive of the issue
1 And, in circumstances not here pertinent, the taxpayer
continues to maintain the household or a substantially equivalent
household in anticipation of her or her co-occupant’s return.
Sec. 1.2-2(c)(1), Income Tax Regs.
2 If it is reasonable to assume that a taxpayer absent from
her household on account of a special condition will return to
the household, then her death prior to her return (making her
absence permanent) would not seem to be a disabling factor
because of the language of sec. 1.2-2(c)(1), Income Tax Regs.,
dealing with death during the taxable year.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011