Henderson v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
143 F.3d 497 (1998)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
James Henderson (plaintiff) lived with his parents in Boise, Idaho, and contributed only minimally to the upkeep of his parents’ house. Henderson worked for an ice show that was based in Virginia, but that toured frequently and extensively. Henderson kept many personal belongings and his dog at his parents’ house in Idaho, paid Idaho taxes, voted in Idaho, held an Idaho driver’s license, and did his banking in Idaho. Between ice-show tours, Henderson would return to Boise, where he occasionally performed minor jobs and made minimal efforts to look for other work. Under § 162(a)(2) of the federal tax code, Henderson deducted his business-travel expenses from his gross income. The commissioner of internal revenue (commissioner) (defendant) denied the deduction on the grounds that Henderson’s travel did not take him “away from home,” as required by § 162(a)(2). The commissioner reasoned that Henderson lacked a “tax home” in Boise because there was no business reason for Henderson to be in Boise between tours. Henderson filed a petition challenging the commissioner’s determination in tax court, which upheld the determination. Henderson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wiggins, J.)
Dissent (Kozinski, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.