O'Hara v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

18 Citing cases

  1. Sherman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    16 T.C. 332 (U.S.T.C. 1951)   Cited 13 times

    Walter F. Brown, 13 B.T.A. 832; Joseph W. Powell, 34 B.T.A. 655, affd., 94 Fed.(2d) 483 (CA-1). This case is unlike S. M. R. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841, in which the taxpayer, a lawyer, was held to have her ‘home‘ at her principal place of employment where she was required to spend full time over a period of years, notwithstanding that she visited her apartment or family residence on weekends in another city where she handled some legal matters for clients at such times. The Court stressed the comparatively inconsequential degree of activity on such occasions and the relatively inconsequential degree of activity on such occasions and the relatively meager returns therefrom.

  2. Montgomery v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    64 T.C. 175 (U.S.T.C. 1975)   Cited 18 times

    These allowances are consistent with our conclusion that Lansing was the petitioner's principal place of employment, but that he did have business duties to perform in Detroit. See S. M. R. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841 (1946). The petitioner has not claimed any greater allowance to cover such expenses.

  3. Puckett v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    56 T.C. 1092 (U.S.T.C. 1971)

    The result might have been different had his services as chairman required his presence in Washington during all of the period from May to December. Cf. George W. Lindsay, 34 B.T.A. 840 (1936); S.M.R. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841 (1946). See also Leon Falk, Jr., 15 T.C. 49, 57 (1950); Ney v. United States, 77 F.Supp. 1005 (1948), affd. 171 F.2d 449 (C.A. 8, 1948), certiorari denied 336 U.S. 967.

  4. Denman v. Comm'r Ofinternal Revenue

    48 T.C. 439 (U.S.T.C. 1967)

    We accordingly conclude and hold that the claimed expenses were the normal personal living expenses of Denman while residing at the sites of his employment and were not travel and living expenses while away from home in the pursuit of his business within the meaning of the statute. See Flowers v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 465, and S. M. R. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841. Business Expense for ‘Office Boys' Issue

  5. Denman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

    48 T.C. 439 (U.S.T.C. 1967)

    We accordingly conclude and hold that the claimed expenses were the normal personal living expenses of Denman while residing at the sites of his employment and were not travel and living expenses while away from home in the pursuit of his business within the meaning of the statute. See Flowers v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 465, and S. M. R. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841. Business Expense for "Office Boys" Issue FINDINGS OF FACT

  6. Verner v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    39 T.C. 749 (U.S.T.C. 1963)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that engineer maintained no abode in area from which he was transferred

    They were thus personal expenses, not business expenses, and are accordingly not deductible. Commissioner v. Flowers, supra; Ney v. United States, 171 Fed.(2d) 449 (C.C.A., 8th Cir., 1948); certiorari denied, 336 U.S. 967 (1949); York v. Commissioner, 160 Fed.(2d) 385 (1947); Virginia Ruiz Carranza (Zuri), 11 T.C. 224; William W. Todd, 10 T.C. 655; John D. Johnson, 8 T.C. 303; S. M. R. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841. Further, the taxpayer in Hartsell traveled approximately 70 miles each way and the nearest ‘habitable community’ was found to be 46 miles distant from the worksite.

  7. Mathews v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    36 T.C. 483 (U.S.T.C. 1961)   Cited 1 times

    See Coburn v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 763 (C.A. 2, 1943). However, in contrast to its former position on this point, the Ninth Circuit in the recent case of Harvey v. Commissioner, 283 F.2d 491 (C.A. 9, 1960), reversing 32 T.C. 1368 (1959), commented ‘that one's tax home is not his place of abode, but is his ‘home post’, his principal place of employment.' This is in accord with our view that ‘For the purposes of the statute, a taxpayer's home means his place of business, employment, or post or station at which he is employed, ‘ Raymond E. Kershner, 14 T.C. 168, 174 (1950); Barnhill v. Commissioner, 148 F.2d 913 (C.A. 4, 1945), affirming a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; James R. Whitaker, 24 T.C. 750 (1955); S. M. R. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841 (1946); Walter M. Priddy, 43 B.T.A. 18 (1940); William Lee Tracy, 39 B.T.A. 578 (1939); George W. Lindsay, 34 B.T.A. 840 (1936); Mort L. Bixler, 5 B.T.A. 1181 (1927). On the facts of this case we think that petitioner's ‘tax home’ was the entire area within a reasonable radius of his place of work where he might normally expect to find living quarters from which he could commute to work.

  8. Carroll v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    20 T.C. 382 (U.S.T.C. 1953)   Cited 6 times

    It is settled that the taxpayer may not use section 23(a)(1)(A) in order to secure a deduction from gross income for traveling expenses incurred at the taxpayer's principal place of employment. Beatrice H. Albert, 13 T.C. 129; Virginia Ruiz Carranza (Zuri), 11 T.C. 224; S. M. R. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841. Since the expenses in question were incurred by petitioner at his principal place of employment they are not deductible under section 23(a)(1)(A) of the Code.

  9. Johnson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    17 T.C. 1261 (U.S.T.C. 1952)   Cited 7 times

    We think that the evidence adequately shows that the petitioner had a home at his principal place of employment where he spent half his working time during the taxable year and where he was to work for his employer unless ordered away temporarily to repair machinery located elsewhere. Traveling expenses, in order to qualify as a deduction, must, among other things, have been incurred while away from home, Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465. It is sometimes difficult to determine where a taxpayer's home is, see for example S. M. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841; Joseph H. Sherman, Jr., 16 T.C. 332. In Commissioner v. Flowers, supra, the Supreme Court said:

  10. Falk v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    15 T.C. 49 (U.S.T.C. 1950)   Cited 2 times

    He had large business interests in Arkansas and, during the term of his Government employment, continued to maintain his residence in that state to which he made trips at intervals to attend to his personal business affairs. Relief was also denied under substantially similar circumstances in the case of S. M. R. O'Hara, 6 T.C. 841. See also Robert F. Green, 12 T.C. 656. Respondent is sustained in his disallowance of the deductions taken.