Frank and Mary Scotten v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Fifth Circuit

Frank and Mary Scotten v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

391 F.2d 274, 21 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 842, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7793

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 1968

Docket24689_1

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 391 F.2d 274 (Frank and Mary Scotten v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank and Mary Scotten v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 391 F.2d 274, 21 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 842, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7793 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Taxpayer, 1 a travelling salesman and consultant, contending that his home was in El Paso, Texas, 2 deducted the unreimbursed living expenses he incurred when not in El Paso as “traveling expenses * * * while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business * * under 26 U.S.C.A. § 162(a) (2). The Tax Court found that under the facts and circumstances of this case, taxpayer had no “home” within the meaning of section 162(a) (2), and that he could not, therefore, deduct his unreimbursed living expenses. The record plainly shows that taxpayer was an itinerant during the years in question, and as such he is not entitled to the deduction under section 162(a) (2). James v. United States, 9 Cir. 1962, 308 F.2d 204; Whitman v. United States, W.D.La.1965, 248 F.Supp. 845.

Affirmed.

1

. Frank Scotten’s wife, Mary, is a party to this action only because she filed joint income tax returns with her husband during the years in question.

2

. Taxpayer alternatively contended that his home was in Chicago, the location of his employer’s headquarters.

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

PER CURIAM:

Taxpayer, 1 a travelling salesman and consultant, contending that his home was in El Paso, Texas, 2 deducted the unreimbursed living expenses he incurred when not in El Paso as “traveling expenses * * * while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business * * under 26 U.S.C.A. § 162(a) (2). The Tax Court found that under the facts and circumstances of this case, taxpayer had no “home” within the meaning of section 162(a) (2), and that he could not, therefore, deduct his unreimbursed living expenses. The record plainly shows that taxpayer was an itinerant during the years in question, and as such he is not entitled to the deduction under section 162(a) (2). James v. United States, 9 Cir. 1962, 308 F.2d 204; Whitman v. United States, W.D.La.1965, 248 F.Supp. 845.

Affirmed.

1

. Frank Scotten’s wife, Mary, is a party to this action only because she filed joint income tax returns with her husband during the years in question.

2

. Taxpayer alternatively contended that his home was in Chicago, the location of his employer’s headquarters.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 F.2d 274, 21 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 842, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-and-mary-scotten-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack