- 16 -
reply brief, neither we nor petitioners were aware that
respondent did not consider Nebraska petitioner’s permanent
residence. Because their residence was not an issue presented
until respondent’s reply brief, we are not persuaded by
respondent’s argument that, because they did not explicitly
establish that Nebraska was their permanent residence and tax
home at trial, petitioners may not treat their personal residence
as their tax home. We find that petitioners did have a permanent
residence and tax home for 2002 in Nebraska, where petitioners
maintained their personal residence, and we hold that
petitioner’s traveling and living expenses related to trips to
union halls in order to seek temporary employment are not
commuting expenses but may be deductible expenses for business-
related travel away from home.
Respondent also argues that petitioner’s trips to San
Francisco and Honolulu do not constitute ordinary and necessary
business trips and thus are not deductible under section 162
because petitioners have not shown that petitioner’s employers
required petitioner to stop at the union halls. Petitioner
testified credibly that he was notified of job opportunities only
if he was physically present at a union hall, where potential
employers announced their current needs. Petitioners have
adequately established that petitioner’s trips to union halls in
2002 were ordinary and necessary business expenses.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008