Act was passed is contained in Jackling v. Commissioner, 9 BTA 312 (1927).  In that case, a "dollar-a-year man" in World War I was allowed to deduct expenses incurred while he was a public employee as ordinary and necessary business expenses despite the fact that his job was not undertaken for profit.  The court, in reviewing the question of whether a deduction should be allowed, stated:


19
The next question is whether the petitioner in computing his net income for 1918 is entitled to deduct the amount of $29,151.37, representing expenditures made by him in that year.  . . .  The evidence clearly shows that these expenditures were made by the petitioner in furtherance and because of the work he was doing for the Government, andno indication that the taxpayer accepted public employment as a tax dodge, or acted other than in good faith, in accepting employment as a member of the senator's staff.  We hold that under the facts as enumerated in this opinion the taxpayer was a public employee under Section 7701(a)(26) of the Internal Revenue Code and was therefore entitled to deduct all ordinary and necessary expenses incurred by him under Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code.


27
II. EXPENSES INCURRED WHILE AWAY FROM HOME.


28
The government argues that the taxpayer's living expenses while he lived in Washington, D.C., and worked as a member of the Senate Staff were not expenses incurred while he was "away from home" under Section 162(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code.  We agree with the