- 11 -
that petitioners therefore had a foreign tax home for purposes of
the claimed foreign earned income exclusion.4
The last sentence of section 911(d)(3) provides that a
taxpayer who has an abode in the United States will not be
treated as having a tax home in a foreign country. Neither
section 911 nor the regulations thereunder define “abode”.5
Court cases that have done so involve taxpayers who have
alternated long blocks of time working abroad with long blocks of
time at home in the United States where their families lived.
Because the taxpayers had domestic ties (such as family) in the
United States and only transitory ties in the foreign country
where the taxpayers worked, the taxpayers were held to have a
U.S. abode. See Harrington v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 297, 307-309
(1989); Doyle v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-463; Lemay v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-256, affd. 837 F.2d 681 (5th Cir.
1988); Bujol v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-230, affd. without
published opinion 842 F.2d 328 (5th Cir. 1988). But cf. Jones v.
4Respondent herein does not argue that, as itinerants,
petitioners had no foreign tax home for purposes of the sec. 911
foreign earned income exclusion. See, e.g., Henderson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-559 (holding that, for purposes of
sec. 162(a)(2), an itinerant taxpayer may be treated as having no
tax home and therefore may not be allowed “away from home”
business travel expense deductions), affd. 143 F.3d 497, 499-501
(9th Cir. 1998).
5Sec. 1.911-2(b), Income Tax Regs., contains the following
statement: “Maintenance of a dwelling in the United States * * *
does not necessarily mean that the * * * [taxpayer’s] abode is in
the United States.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011