This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Hantzis (P) was a law student who lived with her husband in Boston. During the summer of her second year, she got a job as a legal assistant in New York. On the joint return for 1975, P reported the earnings of $3,750 and then deducted under 162(a)(2) the cost of transportation between Boston and New York and the cost of an apartment rented by P and the cost of her meals or $3,204 in total. The Commissioner disallowed them as the taxpayer’s home was her place of employment and her cost of traveling was not incurred while away from home. The Commissioner also argued that the expenses were not incurred in the pursuit of a trade or business. Both positions were rejected by the Tax Court, which found that Boston was P’s home because her employment in New York was only temporary and her expenses were necessitated by her employment in New York. The expenses were deductible, and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.