Rosenspan v. United States 438 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1971) Rosenspan was a traveling salesman. He traveled a lot. He was often on the road for 300 days per year. The rest of the time he spent at his brother's house in NYC, or in a hotel near his home office (also in NYC). He registered to vote using his brother's address, but didn't keep many belongings there and didn't consider it to be a permanent home. His car was registered at his cousin's house in Ohio. Rosenspan filed his taxes, claiming an exemption for qualified meals and lodging. 26 U.S.C. §162(a)(2) allows a deduction for unreimbursed expenses for meals and lodging incurred "while away from home or in the pursuit of a trade of business." The IRS denied the deduction. Rosenspan appealed. The IRS argued that since Rosenspan didn't have a home, he could never be 'away from home'. Therefore, he wasn't entitled to a deduction under §162(a)(2). Rosenspan argued that his business office should be considered his 'home' for §162(a)(2) purposes. The Trial Court found for the IRS. Rosenspan appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Appellate Court looked to Commissioner v. Flowers (326 U.S. 465 (1946)) which said that there were three conditions that must be met to claim a deduction under §162(a)(2): The expenses must be reasonable and necessary traveling expenses. The expense must be incurred while away from home. The expense must be incurred in the pursuit of business. The Court pointed to Flowers, Commissioner v. Peurifoy (358 U.S. 59 (1958)), and Commissioner v. Stidger (386 U.S. 287 (1967)), which were 3 US Supreme Court cases that all found that a business office is not a 'home' §162(a)(2) purposes. Interestingly, in all three of those cases, it was the IRS that was arguing that a business office was a home. The Court found that based on those cases, and a plain language reading of the term 'home' in the Statute, Rosenspan had no home to be away from, and so was not allowed to take a deduction under §162(a)(2). The basic idea behind §162(a)(2) is that if a person has to duplicate their living expenses because of business, they are entitled to deduct the cost of the second set of living expenses. So if you have a house, but are forced to also pay for a hotel because you are traveling for work, that's a duplicate living expense. By the same logic, Rosenspan didn't have a house, he only had a hotel room, so there was no duplication of expenses, hence, no deduction.