- 9 -
Bochner v. Commissioner, supra; Tucker v. Commissioner, supra;
see McNeill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-65; Aldea v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-136.
Once Mr. Wilbert was bumped from Minneapolis, he had no job
to return to there. His choices were to be laid off and have no
work, or to bump other employees and move to different cities to
continue working. NWA no longer required Mr. Wilbert to perform
any services whatsoever in the Minneapolis area once he was
bumped. Although Mrs. Wilbert remained in the family residence
with occasional visits from Mr. Wilbert while Mr. Wilbert worked
in Chicago, Anchorage, and Flushing, this fact alone does not
dictate that Mr. Wilbert’s tax home was in Hudson, Wisconsin,
where the family residence was located. Unlike traveling
salepersons who may be required to return to the home city
occasionally between business trips, Mr. Wilbert’s business ties
to Minneapolis ceased when he was bumped.5
5Petitioners argue in their reply brief that Mr. Wilbert’s
real estate business in 2003 was operated from the Minneapolis
area and he therefore had a position to return to in the
Minneapolis area. Mr. Wilbert acknowledged at trial, however,
that he did not report any income from this activity in 2003. We
find that Mr. Wilbert’s principal employment in 2003 was with
NWA. We assume that, if it were feasible for Mr. Wilbert to
concentrate solely on real estate activities, he would have
accepted a layoff and returned to the Minneapolis area to pursue
the real estate activity full-time. Mr. Wilbert did not do this,
however. Instead, he continued to travel around the country to
keep his job with NWA. Mr. Wilbert’s real estate activities are
thus not a significant factor in our analysis of Mr. Wilbert’s
tax home.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007