"Seth Breidbart" <sethb[at]panix.com> wrote:
- quote -

This is strictly from memory, if you chase these cites and
don't find what you're looking for let me know and I'll see
if I can find different ones for you. Check out:
Walker vs.. Comm. 101 TC 537
Rev.Rul. 55-109
Rev. Rul. 90-23

These should help you better understand the idea of tax home.

Gene E. Utterback, EA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Seth Breidbart wrote:

- quote -

I have heard it defined loosely as the "metropolitan area"
where you normally work. Probably a 50 mile radius around
your place of abode and/or your place of work (whichever is
most obvious) would be a reasonable interpretation.

In the case of (say) Seattle, that would cover the whole
thing, plus the "eastside" where Microsoft is located and
all the snobs live. In the case of greater Los Angeles, I
think you would reasonably have to divide the thing up into
a handful of "metropolitan areas."

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Gene E. Utterback, EA <eagent[at]alliancetax.com> wrote:
- quote -

So his TAX HOME is the entire city, or a little bit around
it, rather than any particular place?

Seth

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

sethb[at]panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
- quote -

I'm not claiming to be an expert on the "away from home"
("tax home") rules, but I believe the IRS's view would be
that it is the individual's choice to maintain his personal
residence at a distance from his primary work place. He
voluntarily incurs duplicate living expenses, which are not
deductible. I don't think it matters what kind of expenses
they are, e.g., an apartment vs. a hotel room that changes
every week.

My point is that a person's residence for personal income
tax purposes is not necessarily the same as his "tax home"
for purposes of deducting "away from home" expenses. The
two concepts are very different.

Katie in San Diego

The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and
does not constitute legal or professional advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb[at]panix.com> wrote:
- quote -

It matters NOT! The issue here is TAX HOME.

Gene E. Utterback, EA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Seth Breidbart wrote:

- quote -

If you mean a hotel in the San Francisco area (as per our
example), he still isn't "away from home" (his "tax home,"
that is). So, no deduction.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Katie Jaques <katiej_1958[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

What if, instead of maintaining a room or apartment, he
stays in a hotel? (What if he has a deal with a hotel so he
always stays in the same one, but the room varies?)

Seth

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Let me jump in here, since Dick invoked my name <G> ... I
agree with Mike. The pilot's residence for individual
income tax purposes is probably Washington. However, San
Francisco is his tax home for purposes of deducting "away
from home" business expenses.

Katie in San Diego

The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and
does not constitute legal or professinal advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

D. Stussy wrote:

- quote -

True, although there might be a nominal cost for meals on
the plane.

The situation I've heard about most often is where the
employee maintains a room or apartment at the flight base
location. You might normally think this would be deductible
because the employee is "away from home." However, in most
cases it probably IS his home for travel expense purposes.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Dick Adams wrote:

- quote -

Keep in mind, we're not talking about "residency" here.
We're talking about the home that the taxpayer must be "away
from" in order to claim deductible travel expenses. The
concepts are not the same, in my opinion. I would agree that
for income tax purposes (but not necessarily for employee
business expense purposes), my hypothetical airline employee
would be a resident of (Seattle) Washington.

That said, I believe there have been some cases where an
airline employee's tax home has indeed been held to be his
domicile home. However, these were cases where the employee
had significant business activities at BOTH locations.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

MTW wrote:
- quote -

But as airline employees, their flight home would be a
"deadhead" - a free ride non-taxable [no-additional-cost to
the employer] fringe benefit, so there wouldn't be any
deductible expense to the employee anyway.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

MTW wrote:
- quote -

Katie Jaques (whom I believe to be an authority on
interstate taxation) and I went around about this several
years ago until I found the cites and the case law that
supported her position. His tax home is Seattle.

Dick

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Seth Breidbart wrote:

- quote -

Expenses at his true home would only be deductible if he
ALSO had bona fide business activities in that area.

Many airline people fall into this situation. They live in
(say) Seattle, but their flight base is (say) San Francisco.
SF would be considered their "tax home" and traveling back
and forth between there and Seattle would generally be
non-deductible "commuting."

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Christopher Green <cj.green[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- quote -

So if someone stayed at a motel every Monday and Wednesday
night, the IRS might consider that his tax home? Then when
he's at his actual home, that would count as "away from
home" making expenses _there_ deductible?

Seth

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

sethb[at]panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
- quote -

[snip]
- quote -

If it happened regularly enough, it might be enough for IRS
to consider the motel his tax home. There are examples in
Pub. 463 of truckers whose tax home ended up being the depot
where they would catch forty winks before heading home after
a week on the road. The key there may be that they did it
with regularity.

--
Chris Green

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Christopher Green <cj.green[at]att.net> wrote:

- quote -

Wouldn't it have to be "usually" rather than "frequently"?

Seth

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

If they came here, I doubt anybody would notice.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Norwood, MA 02062
www.woods-financoal.com

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

David, I don't know what you're talking about here. Meals
are deductible as a travel expense, not a meals expense?
Meals ARE a travel expense and, when other requirements are
met, are deductible at 50%. Your original response "You
don't get meals ever unless its WITH the client" makes no
sense whatsoever. Let's just say you misspoke and forget it.
Will

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

MTW wrote:
- quote -

The U.S. Government used (at least until 1994, when I left
the IRS) a 40 mile radius from both home and one's assigned
office (or "post of duty"). If the destination fell outside
of both circles, one got "travel away from home" allowances.

I think that the 50 mile range you're thinking of comes from
the current moving expense law. That applies to PERMANENT
relocations.

- quote -

In which case, it's not "travel" - so you only get meals at
best.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

David Woods wrote:

- quote -

Would the situation be any different if the Fascists were
holding their national convention in bean-town?

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->