He considered himself a resident of Salem, Oregon, where he voted, owned a house, and had a business office where he kept his personal papers.  His duties at the Senate were to report to Senator Hatfield on various problem areas in the world at large.  To do this, he travelled extensively.  He was not compensated, either by the Senate or by the senator,1 for any out-of-pocket expenses for these services.


4
The expenses claimed by Frank as a result of his activities as an administrative assistant were substantial in amount: 1968: $28,351.22; 1969: $27,009.00; 1970: $23,939.00; 1971: $37,734.00.


5
Significantly, the IRS questioned neither the reasonableness nor the necessity of such claimed expenses, but accepted them as accurate and as necessary to the performance of his duties.  Whenhe filed his income tax return the plaintiff claimed these sums as "charitable contributions" to the United States, deductible under Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code.  The IRS disallowed all deductions in excess of plaintiff's salary.


6
After paying the amount of tax requested, the taxpayer sued for a refund.  The trial court allowed the expenses claimed in full under Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code as ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred for travel while away from his home in Salem, Oregon, and made an alternative finding that the expenses claimed were "charitable contributions" to the United States Government (under Section 170(a)(1) and Section 170(c)(1)) as a "contribution or gift . . .  made for exclusively public purposes").

Three issues are raised on appeal:

7
1. Were