CARMEN CHIMENTO AND SUSAN CHIMENTO, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Tax Court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous and its interpretation of the law was correct.
Taxpayers deducted meals and lodging as travel expenses incurred while "away from home" for the year 1965. The Commissioner disallowed these deduction…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM:
Taxpayers1 appeal a decision of the Tax Court2 sustaining a deficiency asserted against them for the year 1965. On his joint Federal income tax return for 1965, taxpayer deducted the cost of his meals and lodgings while in Binghamton, New York, as travel expenses incurred while “away from home.” Section 162(a) (2), Internal Revenue Code of 1954. These deductions were disallowed by the Commissioner, whose determination was upheld by the Tax Court. The bases for the Tax Court’s decision were the following findings: (a) since the taxpayer had no “home” other than Binghamton during 1965, the expenses were not incurred while the taxpayer was “away from home”; and (b) by 1965 at least, Bing-hamton had become his “tax home” since his job there had become indefinite rather than temporary in nature.
After fully reviewing the record, we cannot say that the Tax Court’s factual findings were “clearly erroneous,” or that it erred in interpreting the applicable law. Accordingly, the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.
. Taxpayer’s wife is a party to these proceedings solely because she had filed a joint return with the taxpayer. . Chimento and Chimento, 52 T.C. 1067 (1969).