                          T.C. Memo. 2003-65



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                WILLIAM J. McNEILL, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 12463-01.                 Filed March 6, 2003.


     William J. McNeill, pro se.

     James A. Kutten and Thomas C. Pliske, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


     THORNTON, Judge:     Respondent determined the following

deficiencies and additions to tax with respect to petitioner’s

Federal income taxes:

                                                  Additions to Tax
          Year                 Deficiency            Sec. 6654

          1998                   $4,065               $84.71
          1999                    3,389                42.16
                               - 2 -



After concessions,1 the sole issue for decision is whether

petitioner is entitled to deduct expenses for travel and meals

under section 162(a)(2).2

     The parties have stipulated some facts, which we incorporate

herein by this reference.   When he filed his petition, petitioner

resided in Crystal City, Missouri.

                            Background

     During the years at issue, petitioner owned and operated a

long-haul, over-the-road truck.   He was on the road about 360

days in 1998 and about 345 days in 1999.

     In 1998, petitioner spent 5 days at a house in Green Bay,

Wisconsin (the Green Bay house), which petitioner’s partner

owned.   The major expense petitioner incurred at the Green Bay




     1
       On brief, respondent has conceded the sec. 6654 additions
to tax. In his amended petition, petitioner alleged that
respondent’s determination of tax set forth in the notice of
deficiency was erroneous because: (1) The deficiencies in
petitioner’s income taxes were not determined by an authorized
delegate of respondent; (2) the notice of deficiency was not sent
by an authorized delegate of respondent; (3) respondent’s
deficiency determination was arbitrary; (4) petitioner’s self-
employment tax liability and corresponding deduction should not
have been increased for the tax years at issue; and (5)
petitioner was entitled to claim an earned income credit for the
years at issue. Petitioner did not pursue these issues at trial
or on brief; therefore, we deem petitioner to have abandoned
them. See Burbage v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 546, 547 n. 2 (1984),
affd. 774 F.2d 644 (4th Cir. 1985).
     2
       Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue.
                                - 3 -

house was for the telephone.    He paid no rent there and did not

contribute to mortgage payments.

     In April 1998, petitioner agreed to buy a friend’s mobile

home in Bonne Terre, Missouri (the mobile home), making payments

of about $1,000 per year before receiving title to the mobile

home in 2001.   In 1998 and 1999, petitioner paid no utilities or

maintenance expenses with respect to the mobile home.   In 1998,

petitioner would stop at the mobile home only for a few hours

while reloading his truck.   In 1999, petitioner spent about 20

days at the mobile home.

     For each year at issue, petitioner filed a Form 1040, U.S.

Individual Income Tax Return.   On Schedule C, Profit or Loss From

Business (Schedule C), attached to his 1998 return, petitioner

deducted $8,006 for travel expenses and $6,480 for meals

expenses.   On Schedule C attached to his 1999 return, petitioner

deducted $5,799 for travel expenses and $5,760 for meals

expenses.   In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed all

these claimed deductions.

                             Discussion

     The cost of traveling, including food and lodging, is

generally considered a nondeductible personal expenditure.   See

Deamer v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 337, 338 (8th Cir. 1985), affg.

T.C. Memo. 1984-63.   A deduction is allowed, however, for

ordinary and necessary business expenses, including “traveling
                                 - 4 -

expenses (including amounts expended for meals and lodging * * *)

while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business”.

Sec. 162(a)(2).   In this context, “home” generally refers to the

taxpayer’s principal place of employment, if he has one;

otherwise, he may treat as his tax home a permanent residence at

which he incurs substantial continuing living expenses.    See

Barone v. Commissioner, 85 T.C 462, 465 (1985), affd. without

published opinion 807 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1986).    If, however, a

taxpayer “‘is constantly on the move due to his work, he is never

“away” from home.’”   Deamer v. Commissioner, supra at 339

(quoting Hantzis v. Commissioner, 638 F.2d 248, 253 (1st Cir.

1981)).   Lacking a tax home, the taxpayer is entitled to no

business deduction for traveling expenses under section 162.     See

Kroll v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 557, 562 (1968).

     During the tax years at issue, petitioner had no principal

place of business, nor did he incur substantial living expenses

at a permanent residence.   His stays at the Green Bay house

(about 5 days in 1998) and the mobile home (about 20 days in

1999) were sporadic and brief.    Apart from the $1,000 annual

payments on the mobile home, he had no substantial continuing

living expenses at either the Green Bay house or the mobile home.

Rather, petitioner was constantly on the move due to his work.

Consequently, he had no tax home within the meaning of section
                              - 5 -

162(a)(2) and is not entitled to the claimed deductions for

traveling expenses (including meals expenses).

     Accordingly, respondent’s disallowance of petitioner’s

claimed traveling expenses (including meals expenses) is

sustained.

     To reflect the foregoing and the parties’ concessions,



                                      Decision will be entered

                              for respondent as to the

                              deficiencies.
