DocketNumber: Docket No. 11360-77
Citation Numbers: 38 T.C.M. 857, 1979 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 318, 1979 T.C. Memo. 209
Filed Date: 5/24/1979
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
1979 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 318">*318
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
STERRETT,
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, and the exhibits attached thereto, are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioner, Joyce R. Camarata, resided in Greenville, Michigan at the time of filing the petition herein.
Petitioner attended Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan.As part of her studies she "student taught" at Avon Elementary, St. Clair, Michigan and Haitema Elementary in Sterling Heights, Michigan, which activity she completed in 1974. Petitioner expected to make teaching her career. However, she encountered considerable difficulty in securing a teaching job in Michigan due to her lack of experience.
Petitioner began working at a drug store in the winter of 1970. She worked there when she was home for vacations and holidays and continued to work there until July or August of 1974. At that time she moved to Athens, Georgia where she had obtained a teaching position as an itinerate teacher for visually impaired students after receiving1979 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 318">*320 negative responses to her Michigan applications.
Petitioner accepted the Georgia position with the intent that she would work there throughout the 1974-75 school year, then return to Michigan to continue her teaching career even though she could have renewed the contract for her position in Georgia. Pursuant to such intent, she continued to submit applications for Michigan positions. After interviewing in Michigan during her 1974 Christmas vacation she obtained a job for the 1975-76 school year in Greenville, Michigan which she accepted.
From January 1974 up to the time she left Michigan for Georgia, petitioner lived in her mother's home in St. Clair, Michigan. She paid her mother rent during that time period. She did not continue the rental payments after moving to Georgia.
In Georgia, petitioner first lived in a motel. She then found an apartment which she occupied. However, she did not execute a lease because of her intent to leave at the close of the 1974-75 school year. Petitioner did not have duplicate living expenses during her 1974 taxable year.
While in Georgia petitioner continued to list her mother's home as her permanent address. She retained her Michigan1979 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 318">*321 car registration and driver's license. She did not apply for Georgia residency. She also returned to Michigan for Thanksgiving and Christmas during the school year she worked in Georgia.
On her Federal income tax return for her taxable year 1974 petitioner claimed $2,186 as travel expense, broken down as follows:
Automobile expense | $ 495 |
Other traveling expense: | |
Hotel and rooms | 869 |
Garage | 25 |
Meals (away from Michigan) | 749 |
Postage | 8 |
Tips | 4 |
Laundry | 36 |
Total claimed traveling expenses | $2,186 |
Less: Reimbursed expenses | 0 |
Total traveling expense claimed | |
net of any reimbursement | $2,186 |
Respondent disallowed this amount in full, but allowed an unclaimed moving expense of $275.50.
OPINION
A deduction is allowed under
Herein the parties agree that the first criterion has been satisfied. However, to be deductible an expenditure must satisfy all three conditions.
At the outset we compliment petitioner on the quality of her brief. She argues therein that her home was in Michigan because she never intended to remain in Georgia. We fully accept her contention on this point. However, petitioner has failed to comprehend the distinction between "home" as it is ordinarily used and "home" or "tax home", as it is used in
Petitioner further argues that the temporary character of her stay in Georgia counteracts the effect of our finding that it was her principal place of business. We do not agree.
The "away from home" provision was enacted to mitigate the burden of a taxpayer who finds it necessary to maintain dual abodes because of the exigencies of his trade or business.
Because petitioner failed to satisfy the away from home test we need not consider whether the expenditures were incurred in the pursuit of a trade or business.
1. SEC. 162.TRADE OR BUSINESS EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including--
* * *
(2) traveling expenses (including amounts expended for meals and lodging other than amounts which are lavish or extravagant under the circumstances) while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business * * *.↩