Document: 358 U.S. 59 79 S.Ct. 104 3 L.Ed.2d 30 James E. PEURIFOY, Paul V. Stines, Betty O. et al., Petitioners,v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. No. 46. Argued Oct. 16, 20, 1958. Decided Nov. 10, Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, See 913, 227. Mr. Daniel R. Dixon, Raleigh, N.C., for the petitioner. Earl Pollock, Washington, D.C., respondent pro hac vice by special leave of Court. PER CURIAM. 1 The petitioners were employed as construction workers at a site in Kinston, North Carolina, continuous periods 20 1/2 months, 12 and 8 respectively, ending year 1953. Each maintained permanent residence elsewhere Carolina. In reporting his adjusted gross income 1953 each petitioner deducted amounts expended board lodging Kinston during period employment there, transportation from to upon leaving that employment. These deductions disallowed respondent. Ensuing Tax Court proceedings resulted decision favor petitioners. 27 T.C. 149. Appeals reversed. 254 F.2d 483. We granted certiorari 356 956, 78 996, 2 1065, consider certain questions application § 23(a)(1)(A) Internal Revenue Code 1939* raised course decisions lower courts since our Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 465, 66 250, 90 L.Ed. 203. However, case has been presented us we have found it inappropriate such questions. issue is whether question constituted allowable under 23(a)(1)(A). Generally, taxpayer entitled deduct unreimbursed travel expenses this subsection only when they are required 'the exigencies business.' supra (326 254). Application general rule would require affirmance judgment present case. To rule, however, engrafted an exception which allows deduction expenditures type made taxpayer's 'temporary' contrasted with 'indefinite' or 'indeterminate.' Compare Schurer Commissioner, 544; Leach 20; Albert 13 129, Warren 205; Whitaker 24 750. does not challenge validity rule. 4 Resolution turns, therefore, narrow fact—Was petitioners' 'indefinite'? Court, stating 'each must be decided basis its own facts circumstances,' page 157, their was temporary. Appeals, also recognizing 'one fact,' held on record Court's finding temporary 'clearly erroneous.' 487. 5 reviewing factual determination, fair assessment record. 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 7482, U.S.C.A. 7482; Rule 52(a), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A.; cf. Universal Camera Corp. National Labor Relations Board, 340 474, 71 456, 95 456. That being so, will intervene. Federal Trade Commission Standard Oil Co., 355 396, 400—401, 369, 371—372, 359; Board Pittsburgh S.S. 498, 502—503, 453, 455—456, 479. 6 Affirmed. 7 Justice DOUGLAS, whom BLACK WHITTAKER concur, dissenting. As Flowers,1 indicated, prerequisites 23(a)(1)(A)2 threefold: reasonable necessary,3 incurred while 'away home,' there 'direct connection between expenditure carrying trade business employer.' (Emphasis supplied.) 470, 252. I think taxpayers met those conditions should allowed claimed deductions. 9 meaning 'home' expressly left undecided Flowers but squarely instant case.4 disagree Commissioner's contention synonymous situs employer's business. Such means who forced place pursue carry home back regardless fact he maintains family abode meets all accepted definitions 'home.' do believe Congress intended harsh result provided traveling expenses. locus merchant factory worker. They job order practice trade. It intolerable burden them uproot families whenever change jobs, if jobs happen take different locality. When undertake living home'5 duration term jobs.6 10 have, then, resolved below rather than here. mixed law fact. turn largely resolution law. error mainly assuming (albeit silently) statutory * '§ 23. Deductions income. 'In computing net shall deductions: '(a) Expenses. '(1) '(A) general. 'All ordinary necessary paid taxable any business, including (including entire amount meals lodging) away pursuit business; *.' (1952 ed.) 23(a)(1)(A), 162(a)(2) 1954 Code, U.S.C.(Supp. V), 162(a)(2), 162(a)(2). There no here necessary. opinion reach because decides ground note 6, infra. Instead affirms relying determination. reversed thought latter tribunal had unwarrantedly extended 'exception' 'temporarily' home. Both agreed actual homes, absence precluded deduction. Nowhere statute distinction absences home, improperly emphasizes determinative factor deciding where actually is. This definition permit lives apart maintenance expenses, matter what nature If appropriate neither nor employee's trade, personal 24(a)(1) (§ 262 262). And may show abandoned original principal residence. hold, suggests, necessarily unavailable expense denied lawyer railroad chose maintain Jackson, Mississippi, although, found, Mobile, Alabama. Jackson Mobile railroad's case, necessary, contractor worked, themselves chosen did decide that, can never justified Government contend nondeductible employer, Flowers. assigned reason disallowance below.

Category: 11