- 15 -
his personal residence in Nebraska, should be considered
petitioner’s tax home. However, as we explained in Johnson v.
Commissioner, supra, because petitioner was employed by various
employers in various locations, he had no principal place of
business, and his personal residence is his tax home. See
Johnson v. Commissioner, supra at 221-224. Thus, petitioner’s
travel between his personal residence and his union halls and
various places of employment is business-related travel away from
home.
In respondent’s reply brief, respondent argues that, because
petitioner received unemployment compensation from the State of
New York and did not testify explicitly that he resided in
Nebraska during 2002, petitioners have not established that
Nebraska was their permanent residence and tax home. Such an
argument is inconsistent with arguments in respondent’s opening
brief that assume that Nebraska was petitioner’s home and
permanent residence. Respondent never questioned petitioner at
trial about where he resided in 2002 or about his receipt of
unemployment compensation from the State of New York. The
parties stipulated that petitioners resided in Nebraska at the
time they filed their petition. Petitioner’s permanent residence
was not an issue presented before or during trial, and the
argument that Nebraska was not petitioner’s permanent residence
was first made in respondent’s reply brief. Until respondent’s
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008