DocketNumber: Docket No. 13337-81.
Filed Date: 4/25/1983
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
WILES,
(1) Whether traveling expenses incurred by petitioner Larrie R. Brown with respect to his employment are deductible under section 162(a)(2), *563 his family from Florida to Mesa, Arizona, and established his membership in Phoenix Local 769 (hereinafter Local 769). *564 Local 1547 utilizes a job referral system under which its members are assigned to various jobs according to the position of their names on certain books. *565 the following jobs in Alaska: Approx. Employer Commencement Termination Duration Wire Communications Corp. Nov. 1974 Nov. 1974 2 weeks City Electric, Inc. Dec. 1974 Feb. 1976 15 months Hardline Electric, Inc. May 1976 June 1976 2 months City Electric, Inc. June. 1976 Oct. 1976 5 months Rogers Electric Corp. Nov. 1976 April 1978 18 months Hardline Electric, Inc. May 1978 July 1978 3 months Rogers Electric Corp. Aug. 1978 Sept. 1978 2 months Harldine Electric, Inc. Oct. 1978 Dec. 1978 3 months
In December 1978, petitioner signed the out of work books at Local 1547 and traveled to Mesa, Arizona, to be with his family for the Christmas holidays. While in Arizona, petitioner learned of a supervisory job in Tucson and signed the out of work books of Local 769 on December 22, 1978. *566 hired notwithstanding his position on Local 769's out of wok books. *567 employment within a few days of signing the out of work books. At no time in 1978 was petitioner unemployed for a period exceeding seven days and, on three of the five referrals that he received during such year, he obtained employment within two days of signing book two. Petitioner spent a total of 50 and 49 weeks, respectively, in Alaska during 1977 and 1978.
Throughout his employment in Alaska, petitioner owned a residence in Mesa, Arizona, where his wife and two children lived. Prior to 1977, and continuing through most of December 1978, petitioner resided in an apartment in Anchorage. During 1977 and 1978, petitioner traveled to his home in Mesa, Arizona, once each year for Christmas.
On his 1977 and 1978 Federal income tax returns, petitioner claimed employee business expenses of $11,419 and $10,224, respectively, consisting of deductions for meals and lodging in Anchorage, Alaska, transportation expenses within Alaska, and travel expenses between Anchorage and Phoenix. In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed these deductions in their entirety. *568 OPINION
The first issue for decision is whether expenses for lodging, meals, and travel were incurred by petitioner while he was "away from home" within the meaning of section 162(a)(2).
As a general rule, deductions for personal expenses are disallowed under section 262. Section 162(a)(2), however, allows a taxpayer to deduct traveling expenses if he can establish that they were: (1) ordinary and necessary; (2) incurred while "away from home"; and (3) incurred in the pursuit of a trade or business.
This Court has consistently held that a taxpayer's "home" for purposes of section 162(a)(2) is the vicinity of his principal place of business or employment, and not where his personal residence is located, if such residence is located in a different place from his principal place of employment.
Employment is temporary if its termination within a short period of time can be foreseen.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth*571 Circuit, to which an appeal from this case would lie, has devised its own test for determining whether a taxpayer's "tax home" has shifted to his present place of employment. In
An employee might be said to change his tax home if there is a reasonable probability
Subsequent opinions by the Ninth Circuit on the same question reveal that its approach to the exception to the general "tax home" rule does not differ materially from the view of this Court.
Petitioner contends that the work he did at each employment site constituted a separate and distinct temporary job and that his home for tax purposes was in Mesa, Arizona, throughout the years in issue. Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that Anchorage, Alaska, was petitioner's principal place of business or employment and thus*573 his tax home, so that expenses incurred in Anchorage were not deductible. Respondent alternatively contends that petitioner failed to substantiate adequately the claimed expenses.
In support of his position that the separate jobs were temporary in nature, petitioner argues that he was employed at many different job sites by several unrelated employers; he always knew the termination date of each job; the union employment referral system caused him to be the last hired and the first fired; and the nature of his work made it impossible to know whether and for how long he would be employed at any one time making it unreasonable to consider moving his family to Alaska.
On the record before us, we believe that petitioner's tax home during the years in issue was Anchorage, Alaska. Our decision is based among other things on the policy behind the away from home provision. Only where the exigencies of a trade or business require the taxpayer temporarily to maintain two places of abode will the dplicate living expenses be deductible. The fundamental issue, therefore, is whether in a particular case it is reasonable to expect the taxpayer to maintain a residence near his trade or business*574 and thereby incur only one set of living expenses (which are nondeductible under section 262).
Second, petitioner only made himself available for work in Alaska. This is a clear objective statement of his intent to make Anchorage his place of employment for an indefinite period.
Our concern is with the taxpayer's principal
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that petitioner's tax home during 1977 and 1978 was in the vicinity of Anchorage, Alaska, and that his travel expenses are not deductible in excess of the amount allowed by respondent. Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1. All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.↩
2. The record is not entirely clear with respect to petitioner's membership in different union locals. Apparently, petitioner originally joined Phoenix Local 769 in 1963; transferred his membership to a Texas local in 1969; transferred his membership to Florida Local 108 in 1970 then finally reestablished his Phoenix local membership in 1973. ↩
3. To obtain job referrals through a local union hall, an unemployed IBEW member must place his name on one of several books consisting of all members seeking employment through that local.↩
4. At some point during petitioner's stay in Alaska, Local 1547 changed from a four book to a two book system. Since the record in the instant case described the two book system, this is what we have referred to in our opinion.↩
5. The record shows an unexplained three-month gap in petitioner's employment during 1976. ↩
6. During this eighteen-month period, petitioner worked on five or six projects without being laid off between assignments.↩
7. In order to comply with IBEW rules which prohibit members from being on the out of work books in one local while working in another, petitioner removed his name from Local 1547's out of work books prior to beginning his supervisory job. ↩
8. The job referral procedures at Local 769 were the same as those at Local 1547 to the extent that job referrals normally went to those whose names appeared at the top of the appropriate list.↩
9. Respondent subsequently allowed petitioner deductions of $205 for air fare from Anchorage, Alaska, to Phoenix, Arizona, and $260 for meals, lodging and local transportation in connection with his return to Phoenix in December 1978, and his job assignment in Tucson, Arizona.↩
10. In
11. As we stated in
12. See footnote 9.↩
Lee E. Coombs and Judy B. Coombs v. Commissioner of ... ( 1979 )
John J. Harvey and Irma P. Harvey v. Commissioner of ... ( 1960 )
Calvin E. Wright, District Director of Internal Revenue v. ... ( 1962 )
Walter P. Stricker and Joan M. Stricker v. Commissioner of ... ( 1971 )
Maurice M. Wills and Gertrude E. Wills v. Commissioner of ... ( 1969 )