Darryl R. and Kristi L. Stephens - Page 11




                                       - 10 -                                         
          did not know how long he would be in Minnesota or where he might            
          go next.  It was not foreseeable that he would be able to return            
          to Georgia at any time due to the seniority system and the job              
          market.  Thus we conclude there was no business reason for                  
          petitioners to maintain a home in Georgia.  Petitioners kept the            
          family residence in Georgia for purely personal reasons.                    
          Petitioners have failed to prove that Mr. Stephens had a tax home           
          in 2003.  Accordingly, Mr. Stephens was not away from home when             
          he worked as an NWA mechanic in Minnesota, and the expenses he              
          incurred while there are not deductible.4                                   
          Noncash Charitable Contributions                                            
               We next turn to whether petitioners are entitled to a                  
          noncash charitable contribution deduction of $1,413.  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.5  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 legislative grace, and the             


               4Even if we had found that Mr. Stephens’ tax home during               
          2003 was in Georgia, Mr. Stephens may not be treated as                     
          temporarily away from home while he worked in Minnesota because             
          the position lasted over a year.  See sec. 162(a).                          
               5Petitioners 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  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007