- 14 -14
from temporary to indefinite due to changed circumstances, or simply
the passage of time. Norwood v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 467, 470
(1976). Whether employment is temporary or indefinite is a question
of fact. Peurifoy v. Commissioner, supra at 60-61. "No single
element is determinative of the ultimate factual issue of
temporariness". Norwood v. Commissioner, supra at 470.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which this
case is appealable, has construed the "temporary versus indefinite"
distinction as follows:
An employee might be said to change his tax home if
there is a reasonable probability known to him that he may
be employed for a long period of time at his new station.
What constitutes "a long period of time" varies with
circumstances surrounding each case. If such be the
case, it is reasonable to expect him to move his
permanent abode to his new station, and thus avoid the
double burden that the Congress intended to mitigate. * *
* [Harvey v. Commissioner, 283 F.2d 491, 495 (9th Cir.
1960), revg. 32 T.C. 1368 (1959).]
We conclude herein that petitioner has failed to establish
that she was away from home while living in Victorville during 1990.
This record is devoid of evidence to establish that petitioner
had a business connection with Catheys Valley. Initially,
11(...continued)
temporary job. Kasun v. United States, 671 F.2d 1059, 1061 (7th
Cir. 1982). The exigencies of temporary employment may require
the taxpayer to incur more substantial costs than might be
incurred in employment of indefinite duration. Rosenspan v.
United States, 438 F.2d 905, 912 (2d Cir. 1971). A deduction for
these expenses eases the burden on taxpayers who must bear the
expenses of living on the road while maintaining a personal
residence. Id. at 912; Bochner v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 824, 828
(1977).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011