Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Flowers
326 U.S. 465 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For travel expenses to be deductible for tax purposes, they must be incurred due to the exigencies of the business, not the personal choice of the taxpayer to maintain a home in a location distant from their principal place of business.
Facts:
- The taxpayer, a lawyer named Flowers, had resided with his family in Jackson, Mississippi since 1903 and maintained his home there.
- Flowers was the general counsel for the Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad, whose main office was in Mobile, Alabama.
- When offered the position, Flowers was unwilling to move from Jackson and made an arrangement with the railroad to continue residing there.
- Under the arrangement, Flowers agreed to pay his own travel expenses between Jackson and Mobile and his living expenses in both cities.
- Flowers's principal post of business was the railroad's main office in Mobile, where the company provided him an office.
- During the tax years 1939 and 1940, Flowers spent significant time working in both cities, making numerous trips between them.
- The legal work Flowers performed in Jackson was not required to be done there and could have been performed at the company headquarters in Mobile.
- The railroad did not require Flowers to maintain a residence in Jackson, and the arrangement served only his personal convenience.
Procedural Posture:
- The taxpayer, Flowers, deducted traveling and living expenses on his 1939 and 1940 income tax returns.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deductions.
- The taxpayer petitioned the Tax Court, which sustained the Commissioner's decision, finding the expenses to be personal.
- The taxpayer, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the Tax Court's judgment, holding the deductions were permissible.
- The Commissioner, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court due to a conflict between the Fifth Circuit's decision and a Fourth Circuit ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does § 23(a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code permit a taxpayer to deduct traveling expenses, including meals and lodging, incurred at their principal place of business when they maintain a permanent residence in a different city for personal reasons?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Murphy
No. The Internal Revenue Code does not permit a taxpayer to deduct traveling expenses incurred for personal convenience rather than business necessity. For a traveling expense to be deductible, three conditions must be met: (1) the expense must be reasonable and necessary; (2) it must be incurred 'while away from home'; and (3) it must be incurred in the pursuit of business. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the circuit split over the definition of 'home,' focusing instead on the third condition. The expenses were not incurred in pursuit of the railroad's business; they were the result of the taxpayer's personal choice to live in Jackson while his principal post of business was in Mobile. The railroad gained nothing from this arrangement. The exigencies of business, not the personal convenience of the traveler, must be the motivating factors for the travel.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rutledge
Yes. The deduction should be permitted because the taxpayer's expenses were incurred while he was away from his actual home solely for business purposes. The dissent argues that the term 'home' in the statute should be interpreted in its ordinary sense as the taxpayer's residence, not as a technical 'tax home' or 'business headquarters.' Flowers's home was unquestionably Jackson, and he traveled to Mobile only to perform his duties for the railroad. The majority's interpretation effectively rewrites the statute and forces taxpayers to move their families to their employer's primary business location, a result Congress did not intend.
Analysis:
This case establishes the principle that for travel expenses to be deductible, they must be necessitated by the employer's business, not the employee's personal living choices. The Court's decision effectively defines a taxpayer's 'home' for tax purposes as their principal place of business, resolving a significant area of dispute. By focusing on the 'in pursuit of business' requirement, the ruling prevents taxpayers from creating deductions by voluntarily choosing to live far from their work. This precedent remains foundational in tax law for analyzing the deductibility of travel and commuting expenses, requiring a direct link between the expense and a business need.
Unlock the full brief for Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Flowers