- 6 -
home which is temporary, as opposed to indefinite, in duration.
Peurifoy v. Commissioner, 358 U.S. 59, 60 (1958). If the
employment is temporary, the tax home is considered to be the
place of the taxpayer's residence; whereas, if the employment is
indefinite, the tax home is the location of employment. Kroll v.
Commissioner, supra at 562. Employment is considered to be
temporary if termination within a short period could be expected.
Mitchell v. Commissioner, supra at 581; Tucker v. Commissioner,
55 T.C. 783, 786 (1971). In contrast, employment is considered
indefinite if termination could not be expected or foreseen
within a fixed or reasonably short period of time. Mitchell v.
Commissioner, supra at 581. This expectation is measured by what
was contemplated at the time employment was accepted.
McCallister v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 505, 509 (1978). The
duration of employment is a factual issue, and no single element
is determinative. Norwood v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 467, 470
(1976).
Based on this record, we conclude that petitioner's
employment at Queens College was indefinite in 1991. Petitioner
had been employed previously by Queens College. During 1991,
petitioner was employed as a full-time assistant professor at
Queens College. It was a tenure-track position. Under the terms
of her contract, tenure may be granted after a designated
probationary period. A grant of tenure confers continuous
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011