Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Peurifoy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

I disagree with the Commissioner's contention that 'home' is synonymous with the situs of the employer's business. Such a construction means that the taxpayer who is forced to travel from place to place to pursue his trade must carry his home on his back regardless of the fact that he maintains his family at an abode which meets all accepted definitions of 'home.' I do not believe that Congress intended such a harsh result when it provided a deduction for traveling expenses. These construction workers do not have a permanent locus of employment as does the merchant or factory worker.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Peurifoy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

Nowhere in the statute or in Flowers is a distinction made between 'temporary' and 'indefinite' absences from home, and in fact such a distinction improperly emphasizes duration of the absence as the determinative factor in deciding where the taxpayer's 'home' actually is.↑ This definition of 'home' will not permit any taxpayer who lives apart from his family to deduct his maintenance expenses, no matter what the nature of his trade or his employer's business.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature