Opinion ID: 446602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Traveling expenses deduction

Text: 3 The cost of traveling, including food and lodging, is generally considered a non-deductible personal expenditure, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 262; Frederick v. United States, 603 F.2d 1292, 1294 (8th Cir.1979). There is, however, an exception for business expenses. Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 162(a)(2) provides: 4 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-- 5 .... 6 (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 .... 7 In order to be deductible under this section, a travel expense must: (1) be reasonable and necessary, (2) be incurred while the taxpayer is away from home, and (3) be incurred while the taxpayer is in pursuit of a trade or business. See Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465, 470, 66 S.Ct. 250, 252, 90 L.Ed. 203 (1946). The tax court determined that Deamer did not meet the second requirement, because he did not have a home from which he could be away. 8 The Deamers argue that Allan Deamer's tax home was in the New York metropolitan area during 1976 or, alternatively, his tax home moved to New Orleans, Louisiana. We disagree; we affirm the tax court's holding that Deamer did not have a home within the meaning of Sec. 162 and that the Deamers therefore may not claim a traveling expense deduction. 9 The meaning of the term home within the context of Sec. 162 is far from clear. See generally Hantzis v. Commissioner, 638 F.2d 248, 252-54 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962, 101 S.Ct. 3112, 69 L.Ed.2d 973 (1981). One's tax home, as construed by this court, generally means one's principal place of business. Weiburg v. Commissioner, 639 F.2d 434, 437 (8th Cir.1981) (per curiam); Cockrell v. Commissioner, 321 F.2d 504, 507 (8th Cir.1963). Hence, [w]hen a taxpayer who maintains a residence in the vicinity of [the taxpayer's] principal place of employment is required to travel to a different location for temporary work, [the taxpayer] is considered to be 'away from home.'  Michel v. Commissioner, 629 F.2d 1071, 1073 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam); see also Frederick v. United States, 603 F.2d at 1294-95. 10 Implicit in the away from home requirement, however, is the premise that the taxpayer actually has a home. Hence, one who has no principal place of business or a permanent residence is considered an itinerant. Michel v. Commissioner, 629 F.2d at 1073-74. An itinerant may not deduct expenses under this section, because he is never considered to be away from home. Id. at 1073. 11 The location of a taxpayer's home and whether he or she is away from home within the meaning of Sec. 162 ordinarily involves a question of fact upon which the taxpayer bears the burden of proof. Id. at 1073; Jenkins v. Commissioner, 418 F.2d 1292, 1294 (8th Cir.1969) (per curiam). A factual determination by the tax court will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Nickerson v. Commissioner, 700 F.2d 402, 405 (7th Cir.1983). The tax court specifically found that Deamer was an itinerant whose home moved from place to place according to his job assignment. [W]here a taxpayer is constantly on the move due to his work, he is never 'away' from home. Hantzis v. Commissioner, 638 F.2d at 253. We hold that the tax court's finding that the Deamers did not have a home within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 162(a)(2) during the year 1976 is not clearly erroneous. 12 The Deamers contend that Allan Deamer's home was in the New York metropolitan area. Allan Deamer presented evidence that he owned a home in New York, that he continually attempted to secure employment in that area, and that his intention throughout the time he worked in other locations was to return to New York. The Commissioner presented evidence that the Deamers had not lived in their New York residence since 1973, that they began leasing their house to tenants in January 1975, and that they continued to lease the house throughout the year 1976 and for several years thereafter. The Deamers claimed depreciation and other business deductions on their house in 1976. Furthermore, Allan Deamer did not present any evidence of any business relationship in the New York area for the year 1976. Indeed, Deamer's last employment in the New York area was in 1972. 13 The Deamers argue, in the alternative, that Allan Deamer's home moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, for purposes of Sec. 162. Deamer claims because his family resided there in a rented apartment while he was on assignment in California and St. Louis, his home remained in New Orleans for the taxable year 1976. Deamer's family, however, moved to St. Louis in July 1976, after he accepted a job assignment in that area. Deamer presented no evidence to indicate that he intended to return to New Orleans or that he kept any business relationship within the area after he left.