Robison v. Montana Department of Revenue, 281 P.3d 218

Robison claimed a Montana income tax deduction for mileage as a business travel expense during 2005–2008.
DOR audited Robison after it found his employment in Wyoming existed indefinitely, making his tax home there.
STAB reversed the ODR and found Robison’s employment temporary, placing his tax home in Billings and allowing the deductions.
District Court reversed STAB, reinstating the ODR’s position that Robison’s employment was indefinite and the deductions disallowed.
Robison appeals to challenge the deductibility of the travel, lodging, and meal expenses, focusing on temporary versus indefinite employment and tax home location.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Temporary vs indefinite employment	Robison argues part of the period was temporary, so some deductions should be allowed.	DOR argues employment was indefinite for the entire period, denying deductions.	Employment was indefinite; no deductions allowed.
Tax home location for deductibility	Tax home remained Billings; travel was away from home for purposes of deduction.	Tax home shifted to Big Piney/Pinedale due to indefinite Wyoming work; travel not deductible.	Tax home shifted to Wyoming; travel expenses not deductible.

Peurifoy v. Commissioner, 254 F.2d 483 (4th Cir. 1958) (construction work often impermanent; travel not deductible when indefinite)
Kasun v. United States, 671 F.2d 1059 (7th Cir. 1982) (construction work generally impermanent; temporary vs indefinite employment depends on foreseeability of termination)
Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465 (Supreme Court, 1946) (travel expenses deductible only if away from home in pursuit of trade or business)
Coombs v. Commissioner, 608 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1979) (tax home can be residence or other location when employment is permanent or indefinite away from residence)
Henderson v. Commissioner, 143 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1998) (tax home concept not equal to ordinary home)