Albert v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Deduction -- Traveling Expense -- Away From Home. -- A woman who worked in Lowell for more than two years is not entitled to deduct as "traveling expenses (including the entire amount expended for meals and lodging) while away from home in pursuit of a trade or business" amounts spent for meals and lodging in Lowell or for railroad or automobile transportation between Lowell and Gloucester, where she resided with her husband (apparently unemployed) and young son.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Murdock, Judge:
The Commissioner concedes that the expenditures were reasonable in amount and of the type that would be deduc-tibie in a proper case, but argues that this taxpayer’s post of duty or employment was in Lowell, and the expenditures were personal or living expenses due to the petitioner’s desire to continue to reside in Gloucester. Here, as in the cases of Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U. S. 465, and Barnhill v. Commissioner, 148 Fed. (2d) 913, the taxpayer had but one job and, for personal reasons, rather than to prosecute or develop the business, chose to reside at a long…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commissioner v. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Schurer v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1944
- Johnson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1947
3Cited by53 opinions
- Peurifoy v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Mitchell v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Courtney v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Henry L. Boone and Nancy M. Boone v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Horton v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.