                          T.C. Memo. 1998-245



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 RICHARD RAYMOND RAUSH, Petitioner v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



        Docket No. 3514-97.                        Filed July 6, 1998.



        Richard Raymond Raush, pro se.

        Anne W. Durning, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


        DINAN, Special Trial Judge:      This case was heard pursuant

to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and

182.1

        1
          Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in
issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
                               - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal

income tax for 1993 in the amount of $3,934.

     The issues for decision are:   (1) Whether petitioner is

entitled to a deduction for employee business expenses; and (2)

whether petitioner received and failed to report interest income

in the amount of $116.

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulations of fact and attached exhibits are incorporated

herein by this reference.   Petitioner claimed that his residence

was in Tempe, Arizona, on the date the petition was filed in this

case.

     Petitioner has been employed as a life/physical sciences

high school teacher for the Calexico Unified School District in

California since 1984.   Petitioner's annual teaching contracts

were for a 10-month period, usually beginning in August and

ending in June.   During the taxable year in issue, petitioner's

wages from his teaching position in Calexico was his sole source

of earned income.   Petitioner's former wife, Jeanne M. Raush, and

his son, George John Raush, lived in Chandler, Arizona, during

1993.   Calexico is located over 200 miles southwest of Chandler.

     The first issue for decision is whether petitioner is

entitled to a deduction for employee business expenses.

Petitioner claimed a Schedule A deduction in the amount of

$15,469 for traveling expenses he paid in connection with his
                                 - 3 -

teaching job in Calexico.    In the statutory notice of deficiency,

respondent disallowed the claimed deduction.

     Section 162(a) allows a deduction for the ordinary and

necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in

carrying on a trade or business including the trade or business

of being an employee.   Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465

(1946).   Section 162(a)(2) allows a deduction for traveling

expenses if the expenses are:    (1) Ordinary and necessary; (2)

paid or incurred while away from home; and (3) paid or incurred

in pursuit of a trade or business.       Bochner v. Commissioner, 67

T.C. 824, 827 (1977).   The purpose behind the deduction for

expenses paid or incurred while a taxpayer is away from home is

to ease the burden on the taxpayer who incurs additional and

duplicate living expenses.     Rosenspan v. United States, 438 F.2d

905, 912 (2d Cir. 1971); Tucker v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 783, 786

(1971).

     For purposes of section 162(a)(2), the vicinity of a

taxpayer's principal place of business or employment generally

is considered his "home".     Mitchell v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 578,

581 (1980).   If a taxpayer chooses for personal reasons to

maintain a residence far from his permanent place of employment,

traveling expenses to and from the place of employment are

nondeductible personal expenses.    Sec. 262; Bochner v.

Commissioner, supra at 827.
                                 - 4 -

     Petitioner's position is that his "home" during 1993 was in

Chandler.   He argues that he conducted research and writing

activities in the Chandler area during 1993 which he considered

his primary business activity.    Respondent's position is that

petitioner's "home" during 1993 was in Calexico.    Respondent

argues that petitioner is not entitled to the claimed deduction

because the expenses were not paid while he was away from home.

     Based on the record, we find that petitioner's primary place

of business or employment, and thus his "home" under section

162(a)(2), was in Calexico.   Petitioner earned his living as a

high school teacher in Calexico.    We are not convinced that he

conducted research, writing, or other business activities in

Chandler which allow his teaching activity in Calexico to be

treated as other than his primary business activity.    According

to his tax returns filed with respondent, he earned no income

from these other activities from 1991 through 1996.    Moreover, we

find the actual time petitioner spent in Chandler during which

these activities could have been conducted insubstantial in

comparison to the actual time he spent teaching in Calexico.      He

worked full-time in Calexico during the school year and testified

that he spent at least 1 month of his 2-month summer vacation in

Alaska with his son, George, in an activity for which he claimed

Schedule C business expense deductions which were allowed by

respondent.   We find that he maintained his residence in Chandler
                                - 5 -

out of personal preference and not because of any business

necessity.    Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (1946).

     We conclude that petitioner's "home" for purposes of section

162(a)(2) was in Calexico.    Accordingly, we hold that he is not

entitled to his claimed deduction for traveling expenses paid in

connection with his employment in Calexico because he was not

"away from home" when such expenses were paid.    Respondent's

determination on this issue is sustained.

     The second issue for decision is whether petitioner received

and failed to report interest income in the amount of $116.

     On his 1993 return, petitioner reported that he received

interest income from Bank of America in the amount of $795.      In

the statutory notice of deficiency, respondent determined that

petitioner failed to report an additional $116 of interest income

as reported to respondent by Bank of America on a Form 1099-INT.

     Section 61(a) includes in gross income all income from

whatever source derived including, but not limited to, interest.

Sec. 61(a)(4).    In his petition to the Court, petitioner

contended that "as far as I know my interest income was declared

in full".    At trial, respondent's counsel stated that she had

copies of respondent's information return program documents that

show the unreported amount determined in the statutory notice of

deficiency, but that she did not "intend to introduce them into

evidence".    In addition, a copy of the Form 1099-INT from Bank of

America was not made part of the record in this case.    In the
                                 - 6 -

absence of any evidence in the record of unreported interest

income, we hold that petitioner did not receive and fail to

report interest income in the amount of $116 for 1993.       Cf. sec.

6201(d).

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              Decision will be entered

                                         under Rule 155.
