## Facts

- Robert Rosenspan worked as an itinerant, commission-based jewelry salesman and paid his own travel costs without employer reimbursement.
- For roughly 300 days each year, he traveled by car through a Midwestern sales territory, staying in hotels and motels and eating in restaurants.
- In 1962 he sold for one New York City jewelry manufacturer; in 1964 he sold for two such employers.
- He returned to New York City several times a year to perform work-related activities at his employers’ offices, including maintaining his sample case, checking orders, handling customer credit issues, recommending stock changes, and attending staff meetings.
- After his wife’s death in 1948, he did not maintain a household; during the relevant years he used his brother’s Brooklyn address for mail, voting, and tax filings, kept some belongings there, and visited Brooklyn where his children lived.
- He often stayed at an inn near the airport when in New York rather than staying at his brother’s home.
- He changed his automobile registration from New York to Ohio using a cousin’s Cincinnati address.
- On his federal returns for 1962 and 1964, he deducted meal and lodging expenses as travel expenses incurred “while away from home” under I.R.C. § 162(a)(2).
- The IRS disallowed the deductions on the ground that he had no “home” for purposes of § 162(a)(2), and the district court denied his refund claim.

## Issues

1. Whether an itinerant traveling salesman who maintains no fixed personal residence may deduct unreimbursed meals and lodging as expenses incurred “while away from home” under I.R.C. § 162(a)(2).
2. Whether “home” in § 162(a)(2) may be treated as the taxpayer’s principal place of business or “business headquarters,” rather than a personal residence, to satisfy the “away from home” requirement.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for the United States and held the expenses were not deductible under § 162(a)(2).
- The court rejected treating the taxpayer’s New York business center as his “home” for § 162(a)(2) purposes on these facts.
- Because Rosenspan maintained no permanent residence and thus incurred no duplicative living expenses, he had no “home” to be “away from” within the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Deductibility under I.R.C. § 162(a)(2) requires that travel expenses be reasonable and necessary, incurred “while away from home,” and incurred in pursuit of the taxpayer’s trade or business.
- Absent clear statutory direction, “home” in § 162(a)(2) is generally understood in its ordinary sense as a personal residence, not merely a business headquarters.
- The “away from home” limitation functions to permit deductions when business travel forces a taxpayer to incur duplicative living expenses (maintaining a home and paying for meals/lodging elsewhere).
- An itinerant taxpayer who maintains no regular place of abode may be treated as having no tax home; in that circumstance, meals and lodging while traveling are treated as nondeductible personal living expenses rather than deductible travel expenses.

## Conclusion

The court held that a taxpayer who effectively lives on the road and maintains no permanent residence cannot satisfy the statutory requirement that expenses be incurred “while away from home” under § 162(a)(2), and therefore cannot deduct routine meals and lodging incurred during continuous travel, even if the taxpayer periodically returns to a business center for work-related functions.


Rosenspan v. United States, 438 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1971)