Carmen Chimento and Susan Chimento v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Carmen Chimento and Susan Chimento v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

438 F.2d 643

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 1971

Docket18490_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 438 F.2d 643 (Carmen Chimento and Susan Chimento v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carmen Chimento and Susan Chimento v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 438 F.2d 643 (3d Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Taxpayers 1 appeal a decision of the Tax Court 2 sustaining a deficiency asserted against them for the year 1965. *644 On his joint Federal income tax return for 1965, taxpayer deducted the cost of his meals and lodgings while in Binghamton, New York, as travel expenses incurred while “away from home.” Section 162(a) (2), Internal Revenue Code of 1954. These deductions were disallowed by the Commissioner, whose determination was upheld by the Tax Court. The bases for the Tax Court’s decision were the following findings: (a) since the taxpayer had no “home” other than Binghamton during 1965, the expenses were not incurred while the taxpayer was “away from home”; and (b) by 1965 at least, Bing-hamton had become his “tax home” since his job there had become indefinite rather than temporary in nature.

After fully reviewing the record, we cannot say that the Tax Court’s factual findings were “clearly erroneous,” or that it erred in interpreting the applicable law. Accordingly, the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

1

. Taxpayer’s wife is a party to these proceedings solely because she had filed a joint return with the taxpayer.

2

. Chimento and Chimento, 52 T.C. 1067 (1969).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Taxpayers 1 appeal a decision of the Tax Court 2 sustaining a deficiency asserted against them for the year 1965. *644 On his joint Federal income tax return for 1965, taxpayer deducted the cost of his meals and lodgings while in Binghamton, New York, as travel expenses incurred while “away from home.” Section 162(a) (2), Internal Revenue Code of 1954. These deductions were disallowed by the Commissioner, whose determination was upheld by the Tax Court. The bases for the Tax Court’s decision were the following findings: (a) since the taxpayer had no “home” other than Binghamton during 1965, the expenses were not incurred while the taxpayer was “away from home”; and (b) by 1965 at least, Bing-hamton had become his “tax home” since his job there had become indefinite rather than temporary in nature.

After fully reviewing the record, we cannot say that the Tax Court’s factual findings were “clearly erroneous,” or that it erred in interpreting the applicable law. Accordingly, the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

1

. Taxpayer’s wife is a party to these proceedings solely because she had filed a joint return with the taxpayer.

2

. Chimento and Chimento, 52 T.C. 1067 (1969).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 F.2d 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carmen-chimento-and-susan-chimento-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack