York v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 10 March 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 9279.,9279. |
| Citation | 160 F.2d 385 |
| Parties | YORK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. John L. York, petitioner, pro se.
Mr. S. Dee Hanson, Special Asst. to Atty. Gen., with whom Messrs. Sewall Key and A. F. Prescott, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., were on the brief, for respondent. Mr. John P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for respondent.
Before EDGERTON, CLARK and WILBUR K. MILLER, Associate Justices.
In September 1942 petitioner, a lawyer, left Atlanta, Georgia, where he and his family then lived, and came to Washington, D. C. He was employed in Washington by the Federal Works Agency and afterwards by the Office of Price Administration. In February 1943, as soon as he could find a place for his family to live, he brought them from Atlanta to the neighborhood of Washington. He now claims as deductions in respect to his 1943 income tax (1) the cost of his meals and lodging in Washington before he moved his family and (2) the cost of moving them.
Section 23(a) (1) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, 56 Stat. 819, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 23, allows deduction of "All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including * * * travelling expenses (including the entire amount expended for meals and lodging) while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business * *". Section 23(a) (2) allows deduction of "all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year for the production or collection of income * *".
The Tax Court was clearly right in ruling against petitioner. A man's living expenses while he is carrying on his business at his regular place of business are personal and not business expenses. This is true even though he maintains, as petitioner did at first, a place of abode so distant from his place of business that daily commuting is impossible. Com'r v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465, 66 S.Ct. 250. Petitioner points out that Flowers maintained his remote establishment from choice whereas petitioner brought his family to Washington as soon as he could. We think the difference immaterial. Petitioner neither maintained a place of abode in Atlanta, nor brought his family to Washington, in order to do the work which he was employed to do. Therefore the expenses which these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liljeberg v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 17-1204
...place of abode in Atlanta, nor brought his family to Washington, in order to do the work which he was employed to do." York v. Comm’r , 160 F.2d 385, 386 (D.C. Cir. 1947). Therefore, even if appellants were "away from home," any expenses must satisfy the business exigencies condition. Appel......
-
Wright v. Hartsell
...maintained their residences in their home districts. 3 In Bercaw v. Commissioner, 165 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1948); York v. Commissioner, 160 F.2d 385 (D.C.Cir.1947); and the many other cases cited by the Commissioner in support of his argument, such a ground was neither contended for by the pa......
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Stidger, 173
...Cir. 1965); Cockrell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 321 F.2d 504 (C.A.8th Cir. 1963); and York v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 82 U.S. App.D.C. 63, 160 F.2d 385 (1947). The Courts of Appeals for the First and Tenth Circuits apparently have not taken a position on this 12 66 Stat.......
-
Harvey v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 67596.
...to be the post of duty of Courtney. Much of what was said in the Courtney case and the cases there cited apply here. See York v. Commissioner, 160 F.2d 385; Ney v. United States, 171 F.2d 449, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 967; Ford v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d 297; and Michael J. Carroll, 20 T.C......
-
Anna K. Diehn, There's No Place Like "home": Sec. 162(a)(2) and Why Married Taxpayers Just Can't Get "away"
...has given rise to the 'marriage penalty.'" (footnote omitted)). 17 See infra Part III. 18 See infra Part IV. 19 E.g., York v. Comm'r, 160 F.2d 385, 385 (1st Cir. 1947) (taxpayer is a lawyer); Wallace v. Comm'r, 144 F.2d 407, 410 (9th Cir. 1944) (taxpayer is an actress); Johnson v. Comm'r, 1......