Fogg v. Commissioner
This text of 1976 T.C. Memo. 254 (Fogg v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DAWSON,
All of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts and exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference. The pertinent facts are summarized below.
Kenneth J. and Margaret M. Fogg were husband and wife during the taxable year 1973. Their legal residence was in Denham Springs, Louisiana, when their petition was filed in this proceeding. Their joint Federal income tax return for 1973 was filed with the Internal Revenue Service Center at Austin, Texas. On February 15, 1974, they filed an amended 1973 tax return with the Internal Revenue Service Center at Austin, Texas.
During 1973 Margaret Fogg (herein referred to as petitioner) was employed as a stewardess by Delta Airlines. She has been employed with Delta Airlines since 1969. Her "base terminal" from 1969 through all of 1973 was New Orleans International Airport in Kenner, Louisiana.
On their 1973 Federal income tax return automobile travel expenses of $2,005.20 for petitioner were claimed as business expenses. They represent the cost of petitioner's transportation*153 via privately owned automobile between her residence in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and her base terminal as a stewardess for Delta Airlines in Kenner, Louisiana.
Beginning in May 1973, throughout the remainder of that year, Kenneth J. Fogg was employed as an attorney in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Petitioner argues that the expenses incurred by her in traveling between her home in Baton Rouge and her "base terminal" in Kenner, Louisiana, constitute deductible business expenses under section 162(a)(2). Respondent contends that such travel expenses constitute nondeductible personal commuting expenses under section 262.
To be deductible under section 162(a)(2), traveling expenses must have been incurred "while away from home." Petitioner argues that when she traveled from her home in Baton Rouge to her place of employment in Kenner she was "away from home" within the meaning of section 162(a)(2).
Confusion over the interpretation given to the word "home" with respect to a taxpayer who resides in one city and works in another has resulted in considerable litigation. Petitioner contends that the word "home," as used in the statute, should be interpreted in its usual sense as meaning*154 place of residence. Some Courts of Appeals have adopted this view.
Respondent, however, takes the position that the word "home" has reference to a taxpayer's principal place of work, and thus the petitioner was not "away from home" when she traveled to her place of business at the New Orleans International Airport.
This court has consistently defined "home" as the equivalent of the taxpayer's principal place of business.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1976 T.C. Memo. 254, 35 T.C.M. 1112, 1976 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fogg-v-commissioner-tax-1976.