an on-campus office with other professors that was inadequately equipped and
was not a safe place to leave papers or equipment. The Second Circuit reversed
the Tax Court’s decision, indicating that a college professor’s principal place of
business is not any more the college campus than a musician’s principal place of
business is the concert hall where he or she performs (see Drucker, 83-2 USTC
¶9550). The court indicated that the focal point test improperly shifted attention
from the place the dominant portion of a taxpayer’s work was done to the place
where his work was more visible. Thus it would appear that the Second Circuit
viewed time as a major factor in determining the principal place of business. This
view was also adopted by the Seventh Circuit in Meiers, 86-1 USTC ¶9180 (CA-
7, 1986).
In Drucker, Weissmann, and Meiers (noted above), the Tax Court decision
was reversed. For many years, the Tax Court stuck to its Baie decision, which
focused on the “focal point” of a taxpayer’s activities (i.e., the place where
services are performed and income is generated). However, the Tax Court
departed from the “focal point” test in Soliman, 94 T.C. 3 (1990). Agreeing with
the Second and Seventh Circuit courts, the Tax Court ruled that a taxpayer’s
principal place of business can be the location where the business is managed if
the taxpayer’s occupation requires essential organizational and management
activities that are distinct from those that generate income. The court concluded
that a taxpayer’s home office can be a principal place of business when a
taxpayer’s home office is essential to his business, when he or she spends
substantial time there, and when there is no other location available to perform the
office functions of the business. The decision of the Tax Court in Soliman was
upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (91-1 USTC ¶50,291).
Because of the controversial decisions being reached by the various courts, the
Supreme Court agreed to review the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Soliman, 93-1
USTC 50,014 (USSC, 1993). The facts in this case show that Soliman was an
anesthesiologist who worked at three different hospitals. He was hired by the
hospitals as an independent contractor and was not given any office space in
which to work. Soliman spent about 30 to 35 hours a week administering
anesthesia to patients at the hospitals and spent an additional 10 to 15 hours a
week in his home office performing management and administrative duties that
were essential to his business.
The Supreme Court decided that the previous tests used to determine the
principal place of business were flawed. The Court stated two primary factors that
should be weighed in making the determination: 1) The relative importance of the
function performed at each business location, and 2) the time spent at each place.
The second factor assumes greater significance when comparison of the
importance of functions performed at various places yields no definitive answer to
the question. Applying these tests to the facts in Soliman, the Court decided that
the work of Dr. Soliman performed at the hospitals was vastly more important to
his business than the administrative work performed at home and that only 25%
of his time was spent doing work in his home office. Therefore, the home office