## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2169 D AVI D A. W ILBERT, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v.
C OM MIS S IONEROF I NTERNAL R EV EN UE,R espo nd ent-A pp ellee

.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. No . 29172- 05

—Di ane L . Kroup a, Judge

.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 10, 2008

— D ECIDED J AN UA RY 21, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Circu it Judg e . T h e q u es tio n p re se n te d by th is appeal i s whether an em plo yee wh o uses “bum ping” r i ghts to a v o i d o r p o s t p o n e l o s i n g h i s j o b c a n d e d u c t th e livin g ex p en se s th at h e inc u rs w h en h e f i n d s h im se lf wo r k i ngf a r fr o m ho me a s a r e s ul to fe xe r c i s i ngthose r i g ht s . T he T a x Co ur tr ul e d a g a i ns tthe t a xp a y e r, T
. C. M em o 2007

- 152, 20 07 W L 1713379 , as ses si ng a defi ci ency o f$ 4, 38 0 i n h is inc o m e ta x pa y m en ts f o r 2 00 3, a nd he2 N o. 08

- 2169 appeals. T h i s i s o ne o fa num bero fl ar gel y i denti calcas es inth e T ax C ou rt, see , e.g., Wa sikv. C o m m ission er, T
. C. M em o 2 00 7-1 48 , 200 7 W L 17 02 68 9; Step hen s v. C o m m issio ner, T. C. Sum m ar y Op . 2 007- 94, 20 07 W L 17026 12; Sto ck w ell v . Co m m ission er, T
. C

. Me mo 2 0 0 7

- 1 4 9 , 2 0 0 7WL 1702 608, al l br ought by m echani cs for m er l y e m plo yed by N or thw estA i rl i nes, l i ke W i lber t, and al l r eso l ved aga i nst the ta xpayer. But thi s s eem s the fi rs t ca se to be a pp e a l e d. H i r ed b y No r th we s ti n 1 9 9 6 , Wi lb e r two r k e d f o r t he a i r l i n e a tth e Mi n n e a p o l i s a i r p o r tf o r s o me y ea r s . He l i ve d wi th hi s wi fe i n H uds o n, W i sc o ns i n, across the M issi ssipp i R iv e r from M inn eap oli s. H ud son i s a sub urb ofM i nneapol i s, r oughl y 2 5 m i l es fro m the ai rpor t. Facin g fi na nc i alpr es su r es a nd a de cl i ne i n a i r l i ne tr affi c i n the wake ofthe ter ro ri st att acks o fS eptem ber11 , 20 01 , N or th w es t la id off m an y e m p loy ee s, in c lu d in g, in A pri l 20 03, W i lber t. But N or thw est’ s m echani cs e ach had a ri ght t o bum p a m or e j unio r m echani c em plo yed b y t h e a i rlin e, th at is, to t ak e h is job. W ilbe rtw as ab le to bum p a m echani c w ho w or ked f or the ai rl in e in C hicag o, bu t he w orked there for only a fe w da ys before bei ng bum ped by a m or e s en i orm echani c. A few days l ater he was abl e t o bum p a m echani c i n A nchora ge, A laska, an d he w orked there for th r e e w eeks be fore b e i ngh i mse l fb um ped. He wa s s o o n ab l e t o b ump a m ec h an ic w h o w or ke d in N ew Y or k , at L aG u ar d ia Ai r p o r t, b u t h e wo r k e d th e r e f o r o n l y a we e k b e f o r e he w as bu m p ed ag ain . A t t h is p oin t, h e h ad ex h au st ed h is bum ping ri ghts. B u t forr eas ons that the par ti es have notN o. 08

- 2169 3 expla i ned, thr ee w eek s l ate r the a irl i ne hi re d him bac k, outsi de the bum ping sys tem , to fi l l an inter i m p osi ti on ( m axi m um ni ne m onths) i n A nchora ge. H e o ccupie d that po si ti o n fo r s ev er almonths b efore b eingl ai d o ffa g ain, thi s ti m e f or goo d. A t no poi nt i n hi s hegi ra d id h e h ave re al i sti c pro spects o fr esum i ng work f orN or thw est i n Minne apo l i s. H e n ow l i ve s i n a Chi ca g o s ubu rb an d w or ks for Fe d er al E x p re ss a tO ’H ar e A irp or t. H e s ells re ales tat e o n the si de ( sel f

- em plo yed) , as he di d w hen he l i ved i n M i nnea p ol i s, but hi s incom e fro m hi s r eal es ta te bus i ne ss the r e was o nl y $ 2, 00 0 i n 2 00 3, the r el ev an t tax year, and he d id n ot actu all y receiv e t h e m one y (a com m issi on) un tilthe foll ow ing year. H e di d no t se l l o r r en t hi s ho m e i n Hudso n, where h is w ife c on tin u ed to live , w h ile w or kin g in te rm itt en tly i n 200 3. Because he was w or ki ng to o f arfro m hom e t o be ab l e to l i ve the r e, he i nc ur r ed l i vinge xpe ns es ( amoun ting to al m ost$2 0, 000) thathe woul d not hav e incurr ed had he r emai ned w orki ngi n Minne apo l i s, a nd tho se a r e th e e x p e n s e s h e d e d u c t e d fr o m th e ta x ab l e i n c o me s h o wn o n h i s 20 03 r etur n. The I nter nal Reve nue Code al l ows the d ed u c ti on, as part of“the ordi naryand n eces sar y expenses . . . i ncurr ed d u rin g t h e t ax ab le ye ar in c ar ry i n g on an y t ra d e o r b u sin es s,” of “t ra ve lin g e x p en se s . . . w hil e [the tax pa yer is] a w a y f r o m h o mei n the pu rs uito fa tr ade orbusi ness. ” 2 6 U. S

. C. § 1 6 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( e m ph a s i s a dde d)

. T he r e i s a n e xc e ption for “p erson al, l ivi ng, or fam il y exp en s e s.” § 262(a). T he ph rase w e hav e ital ici zed i s c riti cal. I t is by an i nt erp retation of that ph r a se th at com m ut ing exp en ses are4 N o. 08

- 2169 disa l l owed bec ause of“a natur alr el uctance
. . . to l i ghten the t ax burden o fpeopl e who have the g oo d f o r t u n e t o i n t e r we a v e wo r kwi th c o n s u mpt i o n . T o a l l o w a ded ucti on f orcom m u ti ng would co nfe r a windfa l l o n p eo p le w h o l i v e in th e s u b u rb s a n d co m m u te to w or k in the c itie s.” M o ss v. C o m m ission er, 75 8 F
. 2d 211, 21 2 ( 7th Cir

. 19 85)

. The l ength ofthe com m ute i s thus i rr el evant
. I fW i lbe r t ha d had a pe r m an en t j o b i n Anch o r ag e but d ecid ed to retain his h om e in M inn eap oli s and return there on weekends a nd duri ng the week l i ve i n a t ruck sto p inW as illa, A las ka , he co u ld n oth av e d ed u c te d from h is t a x a b le inc om e the exp en se of traveling to and fro b et w ee n M in n es ot a a n d A las ka or h is r o o m an d bo ar d in W asil l a. ( W e i gnor e forthe m om ent the poss ibi l i ty that M rs . W ilbe rt had a j ob i n M i nneapol i s, and i fso i ts re l eva n c e.) S i m i l a r l y, h e c o u l d n o th a v e d e d u c t e d h i s t r a v e l i ng expenses i fhe ha d had no hom e s epara te fro m the pla ces he tr avel ed to

— i fhe ha d b een, i n the l anguage o fthe case s, an “i ti nera nt” w or ker, f or then he w oul d ne verhave bee n “away fro m hom e” on hi s t ra vel s. E. g., F i s h er v. C o m m issio ner, 230 F.2 d 7 9 (7t h C ir. 19 56 ); Hend erson v. C o m m issio ner, 1 43 F .3d 4 97(9 th C ir. 19 98 ); D eam er v. C o m m ission er, 752 F. 2d 337 ( 8th Ci r. 19 85) ( per cu ri am )

. H e would have b e e n l i k e s o meo ne wh o s e o nly r e s i de nc e i s a r e c r e a t i onal vehi cl e, o r a truck dri verw ho li ves i n the cab ofhi s t ruck, orthe taxpayeri n the Fish erc a se

— “an i ti nera nt pro fess i o n a l mu s i c i a n, [ wh o ] t r a v e l e d f r o m c i t y t o c i t y p e r f o r min g, so lo, in v ar iou s h ot el d in in g ro o m s a n d co c kt ail l ounges . These engag em ents vari ed i n durati on fro m thre e t o f our w eek s, o r as l ong as seve n o r eig ht m onths.N o. 08

- 2169 5 H i s wife a nd chi l d tra veled and l i ved w i th ta xpayer w here verhe was s i tuate d.” 23 0 F
. 2d at 80. Wi th o u r h y p o th e t i c a l W i lb e r tth e l o n g - d i s t a n c e c o mm ut er, com p are a l aw yer w hos e h o m e and office are both i n M i nneapol i s but w ho has an inter nati onal pract i ce a nd as a re sul t s pen d s m or e t i m e o n the ro ad th an h e d oe s a t h o m e . N ev er th ele ss h e c an d ed u c t h is t r a v e l i n ge x p e n s e s . Hi s wo r kr e q u i r e s h i m t o ma i nt ai n a h om e w ith inn or m al c om m u tin g d ist an c e o f M in n ea p olis because that i s w here hi s offi ce i s, but hi s w ork al so re q u ire s h im to tra ve l, an d th e e x p en s e s h e i n c u rs in tr avel i ng ar e necess ar y to hi s w or k and he cannot offset them byr el oca ti ng hi s r esi dence to the pl aces to wh i ch h e t r a v els be c au se h e h as to m ain ta ina h om e n ea r h is o ffi ce . And l i k ewi se i f, a s i n A nd r e w s v. C o m m ission er, 93 1 F. 2d 132 ( 1stCir. 1 991), the taxpayerhas to m ake su ch frequ en t trips to a p a r t icular site that it i s m ore eco nom i calf orhi m to r ent o r buy a secon d r esidence, at th at sit e, th an to live th er e in a h ot el. W i lber t’ s ca se f al l s in bet w een o ur tw o hypotheti cal case s. U nl i ke the l aw yer, he di d not hav e t o l i ve near M i nne apo l i s afte r the i ni ti al l ay o ffb ec au se he ha d no w or k t h er e (ign or in g f o r th e m om en t h is re al e st at e b u siness)

. But unli ke the i m aginaryW i lber t w ho has a perm an en t j ob in A las ka an d so c ou ld re ad ily re loc at e h is hom e there , the re al W i lber t had j obs ofi nd efi ni te, unpred ictable du ration in A laska (and C hicag o, an d N ew York). It w ou ld h ar d ly h av e b ee n rea list ic t o e x p ec t h im to p u ll up st ake s a nd m ov e to A nchora ge and then to Chica go and t he n t o Ne w Yo r ka nd the n b a c kt o Anc ho r a ge.6 N o. 08

- 2169 R em em ber th at his fi rst s t in t a fter the initi al l ayoff lasted only da ys, his secon d only w eeks, and th e third o n l y o n e w e e k

. H i s s i t u a t i o n w a s u n l i k e th a to fth e e mp loy ee of a N ew Y or k firm w h o, i fh e c h oo se s t o live in Sc arsdal e r atherthan on F i fth A venue, i s forbi dd en to ded uct fro m hi s t axabl e incom e the co m m uti ng expense that he i ncurs by vi rtue o f h i s cho i ce; i t i s a per sonal choi ce

— su bu rban o ve r urba n l i vi ng

— r a ther than anythi ng nece ssi tat ed by hi s j ob. The Tax Court, with s om e j ud i c ial su pp or t, has tr i ed to r es o l ve c as es s ucha s th i s bya sk i ngw he th er the t ax p ay er ’s w or k a w ay from h om e is “t em p o r a r y ” or “ in d efini te, ” a nd al l owing the deducti on oftr avel i ng expenses o n ly if it is th e fo rm er . E .g., Peu r i f oy v . Com m i s s i oner, 35 8 U .S. 59 (19 58 ) (p er cu ria m ); Ka sun v. U nited St a tes , 67 1 F
. 2 d 1 0 5 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 2 ) ; Mi c ha e l D. R o s e & J o hnC. C h om m ie, Fe de r al Inc om eTaxat i on § 3
. 1 0 , p p. 1 1 7

- 2 0 ( 3 d e d. 19 88 ). Th e In te rn al R ev en u e C od e d oe s n otex p licit ly adopt t h e dist i ncti on, but does provi de ( w i th an i m m ate
ri alexce p ti on) that“the ta xpayer shal l notbe tr eat ed as bei ng te m pora ril y aw ay fro m hom e duri ng anyper i od o fe mpl o y men ti fs uc h pe r i o d e xc e e ds 1 y e a r . ” 2 6 U. S

. C. § 162(a). The probl em with the Tax Court ’ s di stincti on i s that w or k c an be, and usual l y i s, both tem pora ryand i nd efi ni te, as in o u r law ye r ex am p le. A law su it h e is try in g in Lo ndo n mi g hts et tl e o n the se co nd da y, o r l as t a m o nth; hi s s oj ourn aw ay fro m hi s o ffi ce wil l ther efor e be bo th t e mpo r a r y and i nd e fi ni t e . Ind e e d all work i s ind efi ni te a n d mu c h “ p e r ma n e n t ” wo r ki s r e a l l y t e mpo r a r y . AnN o. 08

- 2169 7

ac ade m i c l awy ermightaccep t a fi ve - y ea ra ppo i nt m en t as an as si sta nt pro fess orwith e ver y e xpectati on ofo btaini ng te nure a t the end ofthatper i od at that orano ther l aw scho ol ; ye t o ne would notd es c ribe hi m as a “te m por ar y ” empl o y ee e ve n i fhe l eft afte r s i x months a nd thus was not bar re d fr om cl ai m i n g t em pora ryst atus by the on e-ye arr ule

. Our i m aginaryW i lber t who has a perm anent job in A nchora ge but i s r el uctant to m ove th er e fr o m M i nne apo l i s m i g hta r g ue ( atl ea stunti l he had w or ked a yea r, the sta tutory c utofff or“t em pora ry ” w or k) that no j ob is “ p er m anent”

— he m i ght b e fi re d, or he m i ght ha rbo r realisti c hopes ofge tting a bett erj ob b ac k in M i n n ea p olis . Th at p os sib ility w ou ld n otp er m it hi m to deduct the e xpense of c om m uti ng fro m M i nnesot a t o A l ask a. So “te m pora ry ver sus i nd efi ni te” does notwork w el l as a tes t of ded uctibi l i ty and ne i ther does “pers ona l ch oice ve rs u s re as on ab le re sp on se to t h e em p loy m en t s itu at ion,” t e mp t i n ga s th e l a t t e r f o r mu l a i s b e c a u s e o fi t s r e a l i s m. I fno re aso nabl e per son w oul d rel oca te to hi s new plac e of w or k b ecause o funcer tainty about the durat i on o f the ne w j ob, hi s cho i ce t o st ay w here he i s, unl i ke a choi c e t o c o mm ut e fr o m a s ub urb t o the c i t yi n whi ch one’ s o ffi ce i s l oca ted r atherthan live in the ci ty, i s no t an o pti onalper sonalchoi ce l i ke deci din g to sta y a t a FourSea so n s o r a Ri tz Carl ton, but a cho i ce for ced by ci rcum sta nces. W i lber t when fir st noti fi ed that he was b ein g l ai d offco uld f or ese e a se ri es ofte m pora ryj obs all acr oss t he co untry and not e ven l i m i ted, as we know, to the l ower 4 8 s tat es , a n d the co sts o fm oving hi s ho m e t o the l o c a t i o n o fe a c h t e mpo r a r y j o b wo ul d h a v e b e en8 N o. 08

- 2169 p ro h ibit ive . I t w ou ld h a v e m ea n t m ov in g fou r tim es in o n e y ea r on a m ec h an ic’s sa lar y t o c itie s h u n d re d s o r (in the c ase o fA nch or age ve rs us M i nneapol i s, Chica go, o r N ew Yor k) tho usands ofm i l es apart
. The probl em with a te st that f ocuse s o n the re as onable

n es s o f th e t ax p ay e r ’ s d e c isio n n otto m ov e is th atit i s bo und to pro ve nebul ous in appli cation . Fori t j ust as k s th e ta xpa y ert o g i ve a g o o d r ea so n fo r no t m o ving h is h om e w hen he get s a j ob i n a differ ent pla ce, and if he ga ve a g oo d rea son th en hi s t ra vel i ng expenses w oul d be deductibl e a s the pro du ct of a r eas onabl e ba l anci ng of perso nal and b usi ness consi derat i ons. I n th e o ftci te d ca se of H a ntz is v. C o m m ission er, 63 8 F
. 2d 248 ( 1st Ci r . 1 98 1) , the que st i o n w as w he the r a l aw s tu den t who l i ved i n Bosto n w ith h er husband du ring the scho olye ar coul d ded uct hertr avel in g ex penses w hen she too k a sum m erj o b i n New Yo r k

. Gi ve n the t empor ar y natu re of th e job, it m ad e p er fec tly goo d s e n se for h er to ret ain h er h om e in B os to n an d j u stca m p ou t, as it w er e, in N ew Y or k. W hat per suaded the co urt to rej ect the deducti on was that she had no busin ess r ea so n t o r et ain the h o u s e in B os to n . Id

. a t 2 5 5
. S t a t e d d i ffe r e n t l y, s h e h a d no b u sin es s rea so n to b e li vin g in tw o p lac es aton c e, id

. at25 6, unli ke the l aw yeri n ourexa m p le. A nd so the expenses sh e incu r r ed l i vingi n New Yo r kc o ul d no t be tho ug ht

“ o r di na r y a nd ne c e s s a ryex p en se s . . . in c u rre d

. . . in c ar ry in g on an y t ra d e o r b u sin es s.” I fthi s s eem s r athera m echani calr eadi ng o ft h e statute, i t has the s uppo r t no t o nl y o fthe i nfl ue nt i alpr ec ede nt of Hantzis b uta l so of th e ev enmor e i nfl ue nt i alpr ec ede ntN o. 08

- 2169 9 of C o m m i s s i o n e rv. Flo w ers , 326 U

. S. 465, 474 (1946 ), w he re the S up re m e Cour t s ai d that “ the e xi genci es ofbusin ess ra therthan the personal co nveni ences and necess i ti es o fthe t r av el ermustb e th e m o ti va ti ng f ac to r s” i n the deci si on to tr avel

. The “busi ness exi genci es” rule, though hars h, i s s up port ed by com pel l i ng co nsi derat i ons of admi ni st r ab i l i ty
. To a ppl ya t es t of rea so nabl en es s th e I nt e r na l R e venue S e r v i c e wo ul d fi r s th a v e t o de c i de w hetherthe taxpayersho uld have m ove d t o hi s new p lace ofwork. Thi s m i ght r equi re answeri ng such questio n s as wh etherthe schoo l s in the ar ea ofhi s new j ob w er e f a r wo r s e tha n tho s e h i s c hi l dr e n c ur r e nt l y a t t e nd , wh e th e r h i s e l d e r l y p a r e n t s l i v e n e a r h i s ex i s t i n gh o me and requi re hi s a tte n tio n , a nd wh etherhi s chi l dren ha v e ps y c ho l o g i c a l pr o b l e ms tha t mak e i t di ffi c ul tf or them to fi nd n e w fr i e nd s . Wer e i tde c i de d tha ti twas re aso nabl e forthe taxpayerto st ay pu t, it woul d then be co m e ne ce ss ar y t o de te r m i ne whethe r the e xpe ns es he i ncurr ed i n tr avel i ng to and fro m hi s v ar i ou s pl aces o f w or k for h om e visit s ha d b ee n r e as on ab le

— w h et h er in oth er w ord s su c h c o m m ut es, in poin t of frequ en cy, w ere “or dinar y a nd nece ssa ry ” business expenses. T he Inter nal R ev en u e S er vi ce woul d have t o est abl i sh nor m s o fr easonab l e ho m e v i si ts that presum abl y w oul d var y with su ch things as distan ce an d how m an y of th e t a x p a yer’s chi l dren were l i vi ng athom e a nd how ol d they w er e. W e a r e s y mpa the t i c t o Wi lb e r t ’ s p l i g hta nd r e c o g ni ze th e ar ti fi ci al i tyo fs uppo singtha t, a s th e g o ve r nm en t ar gues, he m ade m er el y a per son al c hoi ce t o “co m m ute” fro m M i nneapol i s t o A nchora ge, and Chicag o, a n d N ew10 N o. 08

- 2169 Y o r k, a s i f Mi n n e a p o l i s we r e a s u b u rb o f th o s e c i t i e s. But t he statu tory langu age, the p reced en ts, an d the con side rati ons of adm i ni str abi l i ty that w e ha ve em phasi zed per su ade us t o r ej ec t th e te sto fr ea sonablen es s. The “t empo r a r y v e r s u s i n d e fi n i t e ” t e s ti s n o b e t t e r, s o we fal l bac k on the rule of Flo w ers a nd Hantzis tha t unl es s th e taxpayerhas a business ra th erthan a per sonalr eas on t o be l i vingi n tw o pl ac es he c anno t deduc t hi s tr av el i ng ex pen se s i fhe de ci des no t to move . Inde ed, W i lbe rt’s si tuati on i s r eal l y no d iffer ent fro m the com m on ca se of the c onst ructi on w orkerwh o w or ks at differ ent s i tes th r o ug ho utthe c o unt r y, ne ve r cer ta i n ho w l o ngea chs tint wi l l l as t an d r eluct ant the r efo r e to r el o ca te hi s ho m e. The c on st ru c tio n w or ke r los es , as m u st W ilbe rt . E .g., Yeats v. C o m m ission er, 873 F.2d 115 9 (8th C ir. 1989). W e m i ght wel l have a d i ffer ent c ase i fW i lber t had had a fi rm , j usti fi ed ex p ec tat i on o fbeing r est or ed to hi s j ob at the M i nneapol i s a i rpor t withi n a s hor t tim e ofhi s ini ti al l ayo ff

. S up pose the a i rl i ne had sai d to hi m , “W e m ust l ay y o u o f f, bu t y o u w i l l b e ab l e t o b u mp a l e s s s e n i o r e mp loyee i n A nc hora ge for a few w eeks, and w e are c on fid en t t h at by th en , give n you r s e n iorit y, yo u w ill b e a b l e t o re tu rn to M in n ea p olis .” H is s itu at ion w ou ld th en be co m parabl e t o that ofa M i nneapol i s l aw yer or dered by hi s seni or partner to spend the next m onth tr yi ng a case i n A nchora ge. But that i s no t thi s ca se. W i lbe r t ha s an o th ers tr i ngt o hi s bo w, ho wev er, a r g ui ng th athe ha d t wo b us i ne ss es , no t o ne , the othe r b eingthe sal e o f reales tat e, and that because thatbusi ness w as cente re d i n M i nnea p olis h e had a busi ness re aso n to l i veN o. 08

- 2169 11

nearther e. Thi s would be a goo d argum ent i f s ellin g r eal es ta te w er e h is m ain bu sin es s. A nd rew s v. C o m m issi o n er, sup ra , 931 F.2d at13 8; Z ipo ryn v. C o m m ission er, T
. C

. Me mo 19 97 -15 1, 19 97W L 12 93 59 ; Sh erm a n v . Co m m ission er, 1 6 T
. C. 33 2, 3 37( 19 51 ) ; W i l l i am A

. Kl ein, J osep h Ba nk m an& DanielN
. S havi ro , Fe de r al Inc om eTaxat i on 4 6 5 ( 1 4 th e d. 20 06 ); 1 B or is I. B itt ke r & L aw re n c e L ok ke n, Fe de r al Taxati on of Inc om e, Estate s and G if ts ¶ 2 1. 1. 6, pp. 21- 20 to 21- 21 ( 3d ed. 19 99)

. But obv i ousl y i t i s no t, o r at least was not i n 200 3, wh en hi s t ota l i ncom e (an d in an accr ual r ather than a cash s ense) fro m se l l i ng r eales tat e was o nl y $ 2, 000. A s e xpl aine d i n An dre ws , “ Th e g ui di ng po l i c y mus tbe th at th e t ax p ay er i s r ea so n ab ly ex p ec te d to loc at e h is

‘ hom e, ’ f orta x purposes, athi s ‘ m aj orposto fduty’ so as to m i ni m ize the a m ount o fbusi ness tr avelaway fro m h om e t h at is re q u ire d ; a d e c i sio n to d o ot h er w ise is m ot ivate d not by bu siness nec essity bu t by p erson al consid erati ons, and shoul d no t give r i se to gr eat erbusi ness tr avel ded u c tions. ” 9 31 F. 2d at 138. I fW i lber t had had to tr avel b a c kt o Mi n n e a p o l i s f r o m h i s n e w t a x “ h o me s ” fr o m t i me to t i m e i n o r dert o a tt en d t o hi s r ea l e st at e bus i ne ss , the tr avelexpense ( i fthe bu sin ess w as re al l y the r eas on f or th e t ra ve l ho m e), an d co n c eiv ab l y e ve n so m e o f h is l i vinge xpe ns es a t hi s ho m e ( hi s “seco nda r y ” ho m e, i n a tax sense , si nce hi s pri m ar y hom e f or ta x purposes w oul d fo l l ow his w ork), m ight have been ded uctibl e, j ust as hi s ex pen se s f o r th e o ffi ce equi pm en t th at he pu rch as ed i n h i s r ea l e st at e bus i ne ss wer e. 1 Bi tt k er& Lok k en, sup ra , ¶ 21. 1. 6, p . 21

- 21; se e Sh erm a n v . Co m m ission er, sup ra . Buthe do es no t ar g ue f o r s ucha de duct i o n.12 N o. 08

- 2169 F o r c o mpl e t e ne s s we n o te tha ti fWi lb e r t ’ s wi fe h a d a bu sines s i n Minne apo l i s, thi s woul d m ak e i t al l the m or e r e a s o nab l e f o r Wi lb e r tn o tt o mo v e a wa y fr om M in n ea p olis . B u t itw ou ld n otp er m it h im to d ed u c t h is tr av elin g e x p en se s, b ec au se h is d ec isio n to liv e w ith h is wi fe ( i f o nl y o n o cc as i o na l wee k en ds) woul d (se tt i ng asi de any considerati ons re l ating to hi s r eales tat e s i delin e) b e a p er so n al ra th er th an a b u sin es s d ec isio n . Hantzis v. C o m m ission er, sup ra , 638 F.2d at25 4 a n d n . 11 (“ inth is re spect, M r. and M rs . H an tz is’ s i tuati on i s a nal ogo us to case s invol vi ng spouse s with car eer s in differ ent l oca ti ons. Each m ust ind ep en dentl y s ati sfy the r equi re m en t t h at d ed u c tio n s tak en for tr av el ex p en se s in c u rre d in th e p u rs u it of a tra d e o r b u sin es s a ris e w h ile h e o r sh e is a w ay from h om e” ); C hw a lo w v. C o m m ission er, 47 0 F
. 2d 47 5, 47 7-7 8 (3 d C ir. 19 7 2 ); 1 B itt ke r & L ok ke n, sup ra , ¶ 21 .1.8, p p . 21- 23 to 21 -24 ; Ro se & C h om m ie, sup ra , § 3

. 10, pp. 114- 15. The appeal pre se nts s om e a dd i ti onali ssues , but they ar e ade qua te l y di sc us se d i n the Ta x Co ur t’ s o pi ni o n. A FFI RMED .

1- 21- 09