## Facts

- Catharine Hantzis was a full-time Harvard Law School student living in Boston with her husband, a Northeastern University faculty member.
- In summer 1975, after failing to obtain summer work in Boston, she took a 10-week job as a legal assistant with a New York City law firm.
- She rented an apartment in New York during the job and traveled between New York and Boston on weekends.
- On a joint 1975 return, the couple reported $3,750 in wages from the New York job and claimed about $3,204 in deductions for New York lodging, meals, and transportation between Boston and New York under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a)(2).
- The IRS disallowed the deductions on the grounds that (1) the expenses were not incurred “while away from home” and (2) they were not incurred “in the pursuit of a trade or business.”

## Issues

1. Whether a law student with only a temporary out-of-town job may deduct meals, lodging, and travel costs under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a)(2) by treating her personal residence as her “home.”
2. Whether the “temporary employment” doctrine can establish an “away from home” deduction absent a preexisting trade or business in the claimed home location.
3. Whether duplicative living expenses arising from personal living arrangements, rather than business necessity, qualify as business travel expenses under § 162(a)(2).

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed the Tax Court and held the expenses were not deductible under § 162(a)(2).
- “Home” for § 162(a)(2) generally means the taxpayer’s tax home, tied to the principal place of business, not a personal residence.
- The taxpayer had no Boston-based trade or business; her only trade or business during the relevant period was the New York job.
- The temporary nature of the New York job did not make Boston a tax home because the temporary-employment rule presupposes an existing business base elsewhere.
- The husband’s Boston employment and the couple’s joint residence did not supply the taxpayer with a Boston trade or business for purposes of her deduction.

## Legal Principles

- A § 162(a)(2) travel-expense deduction requires expenses incurred (1) while away from home and (2) in the pursuit of the taxpayer’s trade or business.
- For § 162(a)(2), “home” ordinarily means the taxpayer’s tax home (the vicinity of the principal place of business), not the place of personal residence.
- The “temporary vs. indefinite” assignment doctrine applies only when the taxpayer already has an identifiable trade or business anchored in a separate home area.
- When a taxpayer has no business base in the claimed home area, expenses of living and traveling to work elsewhere are treated as personal living or commuting costs and are not deductible.
- A spouse’s employment location does not determine the other spouse’s tax home for purposes of that spouse’s § 162(a)(2) deduction.

## Conclusion

The court denied the § 162(a)(2) deduction because the taxpayer’s Boston residence was not a tax home anchored by her own trade or business; with her only business activity in New York, the New York living and travel costs were personal or commuting-type expenses rather than deductible away-from-home business travel.


Hantzis v. Comm’r, 638 F.2d 248 (1st Cir. 1981)