Matches in DBpedia 2015-10 for { ?s ?p "Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (1946), was a Federal income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held that in order to deduct the expense of traveling under §162, the expense must be incurred while away from home, and must be a reasonable expense necessary or appropriate to the development and pursuit of a trade or business. In this case, the attorney in question could only deduct traveling expenses from her gross income when the railroad's business forced attorney to travel and live temporarily at some place other than the railroad's principal place of business. Where attorney preferred for personal reasons to live in a different state from the location of his employer's principal office, and his duties required frequent trips to that office, the evidence sustained Tax Court's finding that the necessary relation between expenses of such trips and the railroad's business was lacking."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- Commissioner_v._Flowers abstract "Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (1946), was a Federal income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held that in order to deduct the expense of traveling under §162, the expense must be incurred while away from home, and must be a reasonable expense necessary or appropriate to the development and pursuit of a trade or business. In this case, the attorney in question could only deduct traveling expenses from her gross income when the railroad's business forced attorney to travel and live temporarily at some place other than the railroad's principal place of business. Where attorney preferred for personal reasons to live in a different state from the location of his employer's principal office, and his duties required frequent trips to that office, the evidence sustained Tax Court's finding that the necessary relation between expenses of such trips and the railroad's business was lacking.".