Case Name: Walter P. STRICKER and Joan M. Stricker, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-02-18
Citations: 438 F.2d 1216
Docket Number: No. 20576
Parties: Walter P. STRICKER and Joan M. Stricker, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 438
Pages: 1216–1216

Head Matter:
Walter P. STRICKER and Joan M. Stricker, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20576.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 1971.
W. Dick Coombs, Akron, Ohio, on brief, for petitioners-appellants.
Richard Halberstein, Atty., Tax Division, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee; Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Roth-wacks and Thomas L. Stapleton, Attys., Tax Division, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Before EDWARDS, McCREE, and KENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
This is an appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court which held that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed travel expense deductions claimed by appellants for 1967, and that the assessment of deficiency in income tax for that year, $403.38, was therefore correct.
The Commissioner ruled that Walter P. Strieker was not "away from home" within the meaning of Section 162(a) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) (2). The Tax Court conducted a hearing and thereafter, in an opinion reported at 54 T.C. 355, sustained the deficiency as assessed by the Commissioner. Appellants assert that the Commissioner and the Tax Court erred in its determination that Mr. Strieker was not "away from home" for the first six months of the year in question.
Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, the record in the case and the decision of the Tax Court, we conclude that the findings of fact of the Tax Court are sustained by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous and that the controlling law was correctly applied.
It is therefore ordered that the decision of the Tax Court be, and it hereby is, affirmed.