Keefe v. Commissioner
This text of 12 T.C.M. 1133 (Keefe 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 Findings of Fact and Opinion
Respondent determined a deficiency in the income of petitioner for the calendar year 1947 in the amount of $785.43.
The questions presented are:
(1) Is the sum of $2,463.57, which the petitioner expended for meals and lodging in the year 1947, while in New York City, deductible as traveling expense under the provisions of
(2) May petitioner raise on brief for the first time the issue of whether he is entitled to an exemption under
Other issues presented by the pleadings were waived by the petitioner.
Findings of Fact
A portion of the facts were stipulated and are adopted as part of our findings.
Petitioner is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. He filed his income tax return for the year 1947 with the collector of internal revenue at Albany, New York.
Petitioner was originally employed in 1943 as an industrial engineer with J. J. Plocar Company of Stamford, Connecticut (hereinafter referred to as "Plocar"). Plocar was engaged in furnishing management or industrial engineering services to business concerns, calculated to improve their procedures, efficiency, organization, and the like. Petitioner terminated his employment with Plocar on or about January 1, 1944, when he returned to Chicago. He resided in Chicago from that time until on or about April 1, 1946. During this latter period he lived at the home of his parents, being in miscellaneous positions in the Chicago area.
On or about April 1, 1946, petitioner reentered the employ of Plocar and was assigned as an industrial engineer to their engineering job at Kenyon Transformer Corporation, 840 Barry Street, Bronx, New York*100 (hereinafter referred to as "Kenyon"). Plocar had sold this engineering efficiency job to Kenyon on the representation that it would be completed in three months, whereas, as of April 1, 1946, six months had already elapsed since it undertook the job. Plocar proposed to assign petitioner to the job in order to complete it within two months' time. He worked on the job for Plocar from April to December, 1946, inclusive. Kenyon became dissatisfied with its arrangement with Plocar and proposed that petitioner finish the job as its own employee. Petitioner discussed the matter with Plocar and, on January 1, 1947, by agreement between Plocar, petitioner and Kenyon, petitioner was transferred to Kenyon's payroll and Kenyon terminated all further monetary obligations to Plocar. Petitioner's understanding at that time was that when the Kenyon job was completed he would again return to Plocar. During the time he was employed by Kenyon he reported each day at its place of business, performed his duties there, and returned to the hotel where he resided. He was employed by Kenyon during the entire year of 1947, completed the job on April 1, 1948, and thereupon returned to Chicago.
From April*101 1 to December 31, 1946, petitioner received from Plocar two checks each pay period, one of which was for his salary and the other, at the rate of $6.00 per day, for per diem expenses. After he transferred to the Kenyon payroll in January 1947, and became an employee of Kenyon, his checks from Plocar ceased and he received only one check each pay period from Kenyon. The amount received by petitioner from Kenyon each pay period was the same as he had theretofore received from Plocar for salary plus per diem expenses.
While employed by Plocar on the Kenyon job, petitioner resided at the Tudor Hotel in New York City. During the period he was employed by Kenyon, from January 1, 1947, until April 1, 1948, he continued to reside at this hotel and his wife lived with him there after their marriage on July 12, 1947. They ate their breakfast in the hotel room and their other meals in restaurants. Petitioner did not attempt to obtain any permanent housing accommodations because "apartments were very, very rough" and he did not know when his employment with Kenyon would terminate.
During the calendar year 1947 petitioner expended an aggregate amount of $2,463.57 for lodging and food while*102 living at the Tudor Hotel.
In his income tax return for the year 1947 he claimed an exemption of $500 and $250 for his wife. The exemption claimed for his wife was disallowed by the respondent. The petitioner had no knowledge of any reportable income received by his wife during the year 1947 or that anyone other than he claimed her as a dependent for that year.
When petitioner terminated his employment with Kenyon on April 1, 1948, he and his wife returned to Chicago where they set up housekeeping. He did not seek further employment from Plocar since he and his wife were tired of living in a hotel and wanted to stay in Chicago.
Petitioner has never voted other than in Chicago, Illinois. He has maintained his sole savings accounts with Chicago, Illinois banks during the past 10 years and is presently, and during 1947, was, the owner of an Illinois driver's license. He did not have a New York driver's license during 1947.
Petitioner filed all income tax returns prior and subsequent to 1947 with the collector of internal revenue for the first district of Chicago, Illinois.
On his 1947 Federal income tax return, the petitioner claimed deductions as follows:
| Sales taxes and tax on admissions | $ 70.00 |
| Four trips to Chicago, Ill | 324.22 |