David W. Chiu - Page 13

                                                - 13 -                                                   

                  With respect to the remaining amounts claimed on the return                            
            as moving expenses, since petitioner claims his move to Hong Kong                            
            was in connection with the commencement of self employment,                                  
            section 217(c)(2)(B) would require that petitioner perform                                   
            services as a self-employed individual on a full-time basis, in                              
            the general location of Hong Kong, for at least 78 weeks of the                              
            24-month period following his arrival there, of which at least 39                            
            weeks must occur during the first 12 months.  Although petitioner                            
            was present in Hong Kong for a sufficient period to meet the 78-                             
            week requirement, the evidence falls far short of establishing                               
            that he was working full time for 39 weeks during the first 12                               
            months.  Petitioner testified that he returned to the United                                 
            States "sometime" in 1991 for approximately 1 month to purchase a                            
            computer system, and that he started his business "shortly" after                            
            his return to Hong Kong.  On this evidence, it follows that                                  
            petitioner necessarily failed the 39-week test if his return to                              
            the United States was much later than late February 1991.  In any                            
            event, the evidence presented by petitioner, either at trial or                              
            in the opportunities presented to him post-trial, fails to                                   
            demonstrate that he met the requirements of section 217.                                     
            Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to any deduction for                                 
            moving expenses because of both a failure to substantiate actual                             

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011