Rev. Rul. 55-571

Advice has been requested whether a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on permanent duty at his official station overseas is considered to be traveling `away from home' for the reason that he is required to maintain a home in this country since his family has not been allowed to accompany him abroad. Stated otherwise, the question is whether the reasoning in I.T. 1497, C.B. I-2, 89 (1922), as modified by I.T. 3474, C.B. 1941-1, 207, is applicable to the instant case.

Section 162(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 allows the deduction of expenses incurred for meals and lodging only while the taxpayer is traveling `away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business.'

In I.T. 1497, supra , as modified by I.T. 3474, supra , the term `home' was defined as the taxpayer's dwelling place; the house in which one lives; the house in which one lives with his family. Consequently, naval officers on permanent duty afloat who maintained such homes ashore were considered to be traveling `away from home' for Federal income tax purposes and were allowed a tax deduction on account of their expenses for subsistence.

The meaning of the word `home' with reference to a taxpayer residing in one place and working in another has engendered much difficulty and litigation. Commissioner v. J. N. Flowers , 326 U.S. 465, Ct. D. 1659, C.B. 1946-1, 57. While a taxpayer's `home' for traveling expense purposes is occasionally construed in its ordinary sense as meaning a family residence or usual place of abode (see, for example, Herman Martin v. Commissioner , 44 B.T.A. 185; Wilson John Fisher v. Commissioner , 23 T.C. 218), his `home' is such more frequently held to be located at the place which constitutes his principal or regular post of duty. Despite such variations, however, it is now firmly established that expenses incurred by a taxpayer for meals and lodging at his principal or regular post of duty are not deductible, even though such place is located at a distance from his residence. Rev. Rul. 54-497, C.B. 1954-2, 75. Furthermore, it has consistently been held that such rule is not affected by reason of the fact that it is difficult or impossible for the taxpayer to maintain his family abode at his principal or regular place of business. See Henry C. Warren v. Commissioner , 13 T.C. 205; Willard S. Jones v. Commissioner , 13 T.C. 880.

In view of the foregoing, a naval officer on permanent duty afloat is not in a travel status while at the home port of his ship (which is comparable to the home terminal of a train, bus or airplane) because that location is ordinarily considered to be his principal or regular post of duty. However, such an officer is considered to be in a travel status, for Federal income tax purposes, while on a voyage requiring his absence from such home port of a minimum period which lasts substantially longer than an ordinary day's work and during which his duties require him to obtain necessary sleep while away from such home port. See Rev. Rul. 55-235, C.B. 1955-1, 274.

Accordingly, it is held that members of the Armed Forces of the United States on permanent duty assignments at official stations overseas are not traveling `away from home' and may not deduct their expenses for meals and lodging at such locations, even though they are required to maintain homes in the United States for their families who are not allowed to accompany them.

I.T. 3474, C.B. 1941-1, 207, and I.T. 1497, C.B. I-2, 89 (1922), are modified to the extent that they are inconsistent with the foregoing conclusions concerning the meaning of the term `home' as contemplated by section 162(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954