Master First Circuit denies § 162(a)(2) travel-expense deductions to a law student working a temporary summer job in New York because she had no business 'tax home' in Boston. with this comprehensive case brief.
Hantzis v. Commissioner is a cornerstone case in federal income tax law addressing the boundary between deductible business travel expenses and nondeductible personal living expenses. It clarifies the meaning of "home" in the phrase "away from home" under Internal Revenue Code § 162(a)(2), rejecting a purely residential or family-based definition in favor of a business-anchored concept: a taxpayer's "tax home" is ordinarily her principal place of business. The decision thus prevents taxpayers from transforming personal choices—such as where to maintain a family household or attend school—into deductible business costs.
For law students, Hantzis is especially instructive because it involves a familiar scenario: a summer associate job in a different city. The First Circuit explains why the temporary nature of employment, by itself, does not create an "away from home" deduction. Instead, the court demands a preexisting business base that creates duplicative living expenses for business—not personal—reasons. The opinion synthesizes Commissioner v. Flowers and the "temporary vs. indefinite" employment line of cases to deliver a clear doctrinal framework for travel deductions.
Hantzis v. Commissioner, 638 F.2d 248 (1st Cir. 1981)
The taxpayer, a law student residing with her husband in Boston, accepted a 10‑week summer associate position with a New York City law firm. She maintained the couple's apartment in Boston, where her husband remained, and rented temporary accommodations in New York for the summer. She incurred lodging, meal, and related living expenses in New York and sought to deduct them as ordinary and necessary business expenses "while away from home" under I.R.C. § 162(a)(2). The IRS disallowed the deductions on the ground that New York, not Boston, was her "tax home" during the summer because New York was her only place of business. The Tax Court upheld the Commissioner, and the taxpayer appealed to the First Circuit.
Whether a law student's living expenses incurred while working a temporary summer job in New York City are deductible as "traveling expenses while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business" under I.R.C. § 162(a)(2) when the taxpayer's only business during the period was in New York and she had no business ties to Boston, where she maintained a household.
Under I.R.C. § 162(a)(2), a taxpayer may deduct ordinary and necessary traveling expenses incurred while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business. Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (1946), establishes three requirements: (1) the expense must be reasonable and necessary traveling expense; (2) incurred while away from home; and (3) incurred in pursuit of the taxpayer's trade or business. For § 162(a)(2) purposes, "home" generally means the taxpayer's tax home—her principal place of business or employment, not her personal residence. Deductions are allowed when business exigencies compel the taxpayer to maintain two places of abode, resulting in duplicative living expenses; they are disallowed when the duplication arises from personal choices. Temporary employment may justify deduction only if the taxpayer already has a trade or business connection to the claimed home base; absent such a connection, the place of temporary employment is the tax home and living expenses there are personal and nondeductible under § 262.
No. The taxpayer's New York living expenses were not deductible under § 162(a)(2) because her tax home during the summer was New York—the sole location of her business activity—and she had no business ties to Boston. The duplication of living expenses was caused by personal, not business, reasons.
The court anchored its analysis in the Flowers framework, emphasizing that § 162 targets business, not personal, expenses. The statutory phrase "away from home" presupposes that the taxpayer has a business-based home from which she is away. During the relevant period, the taxpayer had no trade or business activity in Boston—she was a student. Her only business was in New York, where she worked as a summer associate. Thus, New York was her tax home for § 162 purposes. The court rejected the argument that the temporary nature of the New York job, standing alone, turns New York into an "away from home" location. The temporary/indefinite distinction is relevant only when the taxpayer has an existing business base elsewhere that necessitates duplicative expenses due to business exigencies. Here, maintaining the Boston household stemmed from personal circumstances (marital and educational choices), not from the needs of any business carried on in Boston. Allowing a deduction would improperly shift personal living costs to the tax system and undermine the principle that daily living expenses are nondeductible under § 262. Moreover, the court stressed that "home" does not mean the place of personal residence or family domicile when that meaning conflicts with the business focus of § 162. To permit deductions whenever a taxpayer chooses to keep a residence in one city while accepting a temporary job in another would create a per se rule favoring personal preferences and would distort the statute. Because the taxpayer lacked business ties to Boston, she failed both the "away from home" and the "in pursuit of business" elements. The Tax Court's decision for the Commissioner was therefore affirmed.
Hantzis teaches that the tax home is a business concept, not a personal or familial one, and that temporary employment outside one's residence does not automatically produce deductible travel expenses. The case is frequently assigned in Federal Income Tax courses to illustrate: (1) the Flowers test; (2) the definition of "tax home"; (3) the limited role of the temporary-employment doctrine; and (4) the necessity of showing that duplicate living costs arise from business exigencies rather than personal choices. It is especially salient for students and professionals with internships, clerkships, or short-term assignments away from where they live or go to school.
A taxpayer's tax home is generally her principal place of business or employment, not her personal residence. If the taxpayer lacks a business base in the place she lives, the tax home will be where she actually works. Only expenses incurred while away from that business-based home, due to business necessity, can qualify for deduction.
No. Temporary employment supports a deduction only when the taxpayer already has a trade or business at another location that necessitates maintaining a residence there for business reasons, creating duplicative living expenses. If there is no preexisting business base elsewhere, the temporary job location is the tax home and living expenses there are personal and nondeductible.
Possibly. If the taxpayer had a bona fide trade or business in Boston and took a short-term New York assignment required by business exigencies, duplicate living expenses in New York could be deductible under § 162(a)(2). The key is demonstrating a real business connection to Boston and that duplication of costs was compelled by business, not personal, reasons.
Hantzis applies the Flowers three-part test and reinforces that expenses must be incurred away from a business-based home and in pursuit of the taxpayer's trade or business. It emphasizes that personal choices—such as where to keep a family home or attend school—do not satisfy the business necessity component required by Flowers.
Standing alone, no. Marital or educational reasons for maintaining a residence do not create the business exigencies § 162(a)(2) requires. Those considerations may coexist with business reasons, but the deduction turns on whether duplicate expenses were caused by the demands of the taxpayer's trade or business, not by personal preferences.
I.R.C. § 162(a)(2) authorizes deductions for ordinary and necessary traveling expenses while away from home in pursuit of a trade or business; I.R.C. § 262(a) disallows deductions for personal, living, or family expenses. Hantzis polices the boundary between these provisions by defining 'home' as a business concept and requiring business exigency for duplicate living costs.
Hantzis v. Commissioner squarely holds that a taxpayer's 'home' under § 162(a)(2) is her business base, not her place of residence, and that temporary work away from where one lives does not by itself generate deductible travel expenses. The decision prevents taxpayers from converting personal choices—such as maintaining a household in one city while briefly working or studying in another—into deductible business costs.
For students and practitioners, Hantzis provides a durable template: identify the tax home by locating the principal place of business; ask whether duplicate living expenses were compelled by business exigencies; and verify that the expenses were incurred in pursuit of the taxpayer's trade or business. Applying this structure ensures doctrinal fidelity to § 162 and preserves the personal-expense disallowance in § 262.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →