WHETHER AN ARMY OFFICER, STATIONED IN WASHINGTON, WHO MAINTAINS A HOME ELSEWHERE, MAY DEDUCT LIVING EXPENSES INCURRED IN WASHINGTON

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP57-00384R001200010242-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Sequence Number: 242
• Content Type: REPORT

)proved For Rel
9zzbjeetz 'bother on Arr officer, stationed in 'kaehington, who
estaixatans a home elsewhere, say deduct living expenses
incurred in 1`a.shington.
1. The question preseyated is whether an Army officer, stationed
in Washingt':n, who maintains a hone elscswhere, nay deduct living ex-
penses incurred in 4'h sh ington.
2. At the outset, it is obvious that to the extent that the
officer is roirabursed through
and subsiste- ce allowances (Which
ass nraeaxrs, section 29.22(&'-30 Regulations
v s United States, 60 Ct. Cl. 652)
expenses are not paid by
the officer mid he may .mot deduct thheeen. f.T. 3474, C.S. 1941-1#
p.. 207. The question, thcrsfore, is whet xer the may ueduot the amount
by which his expenses
3. etiou 24(a) of the Internal 1Rovenue Code provides in part
f o11+swa s
as
ceaputing net in o ee no deduction shall in any ease be
re respect of--
ride or business within the weaning of the statute. I.2. 1497,
I-2 C-3- $9, orasally, .owever, living expenses are ion-deduetlb d
any trade )r bossiness, tnoludi.ng***traveliaag expenses (laoluding
the entire as ount expeaded f or r Bala and lodging) while away from
hose in the pursuit or a trade or business)***"
6. There is no question thet the profession of an Army offie:er
expenses paid or incurred during the taxable gear in csarrvinr on
(1) Trade or business expenses.---
(A) In General.---.x;11 the ordinary and
they must be Incurred "while away from home in the pursuit of a
2eetion 23 of th, code, In part provideas
"In computing not income there shall be allowed as deduqtA4,o
personal, living, or family expenses,***."
24(s), unless they o~institute "travolin ; expenses" under
25()(1)(A). It will be observed that to fall within that catoe--
trade of business."
Approved For Release 2007/01/16: CIA-RDP57-00384R001200010242-1
 Approved For Release 2007/01/16: CIA-RDP57-00384R001200010242-1
in which the Board of Tax appeals (now Tax Curt) has uniformly oon-
the
is a
take a deduction for his additiapal living expenses, $ R v
T.A. 1181; L
of business, employment, or the post
ad" and that a taxpayer may not keep his places of residence at
a he is not engaged in carrying on a trade or business end
Docket Noss. 37, 38, 31 ay 1944.
July
T. 1404, I-
pressly ruled that a naval officer wEto in stationed in one locality for
an indefinite period of time in not engaged in traveling In pursuit of a
or business and ev not deduct is living expenses at his station.
7. The >,irssuit Courts of Appeals for the Second and 1inth Circuits
Lou
yer' as "hone" within the weaning of the statute
v vommissioner, 34 A.T.A. 8401 Priddy v Cow-A..ssi;
dismissed (C.C.
sd the Board's view. In Coburn v. ' oz issioner,
763, the taxpayer was an motor and vanagor in legitimate
a pert
pant an aggregate
days in Call-
I short-term contracts to appear in motion pictu
in , expenses in California. The
f Tax Appeals hold that during that year the taxpayer's pain ;ipaal occupation
of a movie motor in California, and that, consequently, his
ended to b,,, anything but temporary. In holding,
therefore, that the expense was incurred away from "home" the court said t
e ordinary meaning of the word Mr. Coburn's 'home'
poses was in California. The = i rcu it Court Pointed
,yer always intended to return to Now York, and 'tie California
York, not in California. The `. oa,iissioner urges
he statute uses the word in a special 'taus; senses which
compels the opposite conolua ion. But nothing in the statute
boars evidence of any unusual. meaning. Ordinarily, it is true,
as his 'homc ' in the city or locality where he
rri.es on his trade or business; and, if he chooses to live
in the suburbs, It may well be that the expenses of daily travel
Approved For Release 2007/01/16: CIA-RDP57-00384R001200010242-1
 Approved For Release 2007/01/16: CIA-RDP57-00384R001200010242-1
ae of business are personal eex enses
' within the meaning of the
i : an, I g. .A, 9$. ftt grating
words of the statute aer be given
we are conmiuced that a taxpayer's
sensee, ought to be limited to the place
plarly sapleynd or oustoi arily carries on
table year.'
leffi~ , (C. .A.
sac, but for the purpe
id ,...~.., the
a teptrary residence in Roll
loco, and eaid:
undeniable intenti
certain whether there
roue to employ the expression
htsate in the pursuit of a trade or busm ass? in +h M
urt cited the taxpayer
ordi ry a" usual meaning of the words used ee s e,
oglolatio* under consideration other than &acording to
have fOuW nothing in section 23 (a) (I) of the Internal
or in the earlier legislation from iah this
derived which denotes any intent by Congress to
'honer' as therein used any unusual or novel
Tax Court in its effort to differentiate
erd 'domiojle' and 'legal residence' of both
potitioners after their warrisg?; and their 'ho e' at such times,
has, we think, invaded the doain of Congress in construing the
place of busi*ess, ozploymnt or the past or
he is employed.' Had *-ongreas intended that
d 'ha e' should act be usiderstood and applied in ita
sense but rather as meaning the locale of ployaent
Of the taxpayer, it would have used a more appropriate tern
7A bQ100 in relation, to the place of abode is a dwelling
person by the intiwaoy of the relation bete a n the ni r* n
Mau see FA ee.
* e e e
*Petitioner Ina Claire allase's reelatiea w with 1oli
"vicinity were casual, professional and temaaporary. Some
up hoe, as that place is ordinarily designated,
physical presence and her place of
vicinity of :foiiywood more businses neaessitt.s,
no time did she a feat any intention or desire to
after compietiaan of her work. All of.
the deduotiem are claimed more allt i;
as distinguished from peers al expenses acai
e pursuit of and directly connected with a
Ioywent while he e.s away from
Approved For Release 2007/01/16: CIA-RDP57-00384R001200010242-1
 Approved For Release 2007/01/16: CIA-RDP57-00384R001200010242-1
"The clearly expressed purpose of or ress
incrs tax laws is to impose tax burdens upon the net in
of individuals, and in ascertaining such income ho Congress
has used only literal terms in specifying the allowable
da actions from gross income such caning of deductions must
be accepted by the, courts unless such course would load to
absurd results. We can conceive of no such results by -wing
to the word 'horse' in the application of "ecti*n 23 (a)l) of
the Internal Revenue Cods its normal and eusto ary
the other hand, to judicially innava yea a iseaning of 'ho- le'
the taxpayer's 'place of business, employment, or the poet
or station at whioh he is employed,' as the Tax Court `tae do:
would, we think, operate to thwart the obvlouc.pur osc of
Congress to tax net income and o ld in raany oases tax the
gross instead of the not income of individuals."
re to be a strong
allowance of a deduction of unroimbursed living expenses
enporary officers; the rights of officers of the Regular Army
not so clear. or the eitisen=soldier who h,4.s maintained
his peace-time home, it is clear
as soon as he is released from active duty. His expenses would,
additional quarters
expenses are temporary, and that he intends
ourred away from "home' as the appellate courts he
such officers likewise have another "grind
toner, 3 T.C. No. 68). It would seen, however,
, thmrefore, are
ion. If hiss expenses exe eed his allowances by r
of his maintaining his family with him, howe,
.otion is extremely
doubtful. Likewise, for the professional soldier, the deduction to
doubtfu
living expenses in only one place, could not successfully
The Army, of course, is the permanent business
or and he cannot have a home apart from his station in the sense
of a place to which he will return between temporary excursions. "ith
the exception, perhaps, of actual combat stations, ea.
Approved For Release 2007/01/16: CIA-RDP57-00384R001200010242-1
 Approved For Rel
his home. kooordingly, it ie doubtful if his luring almnsese are
either officer, ha wrev4 r
bly follow a claim for
approve the deductions.
gation,
unlikely
re, reauld
Approved For Release 2007/01/16: CIA-RDP57-00384R001200010242-1