U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1968

Frank and Mary Scotten v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided March 7, 1968 · Coleman, Ainsworth, Dyer

391 F.2d 274; 21 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 842; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7793 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Towner Leeper, El Paso, Tex., for appellant., Lester R. Uretz, Chief Counsel, IRS, Christopher J. Ray, Atty., IRS, Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Gilbert E. Andrews, on brief, Deene R. Goodlaw, Edward L. Rogers, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

A. J. Michel, Jr. And Raymonde A. Michel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1980)
Michel v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1977)
Bell v. United States (Court of Claims 1979)
Bochner v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1977)
In re Bechtelheimer (United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida 1999)
Baugh v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1996)
Semock v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1994)
Christy v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1993)
Reinhardt v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1993)
Taylor v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1985)
Desmond v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1980)
Smith v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1980)
Camarata v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1979)
Boyer v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1977)
Kaye v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1974)
Thurman v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1970)
Rosenspan v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 1970)
McKilligan v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1968)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Taxpayer, 1 a travelling salesman and consultant, contending that his home was in El Paso, Texas, 2 deducted the unreimbursed living expenses he incurred when not in El Paso as “traveling expenses * * * while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business * * under 26 U.S.C.A. § 162(a) (2). The Tax Court found that under the facts and circumstances of this case, taxpayer had no “home” within the meaning of section 162(a) (2), and that he could not, therefore, deduct his unreimbursed living expenses. The record plainly shows that taxpayer was an itinerant during the years in question, and as such he is not entitled to the deduction under section 162(a) (2). James v. United States, 9 Cir. 1962, 308 F.2d 204; Whitman v. United States, W.D.La.1965, 248 F.Supp. 845.

Affirmed.

. Frank Scotten’s wife, Mary, is a party to this action only because she filed joint income tax returns with her husband during the years in question.

. Taxpayer alternatively contended that his home was in Chicago, the location of his employer’s headquarters.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.