- 9 -
we may regard his decision to keep his family there as motivated
by personal reasons unrelated to his trade or business. This is
so even though his job in another place lasts for less than a
year. Tucker v. Commissioner, supra at 787.
Based on the facts of this case, petitioner's reliance on
Rev. Rul. 93-86, 1993-2 C.B. 71, is misplaced. Revenue rulings
do not have the force of law, and courts are not bound by them.
Foil v. Commissioner, 920 F.2d 1196, 1201 (5th Cir. 1990), affg.
per curiam 92 T.C. 376 (1989); Estate of Leach v. Commissioner,
82 T.C. 952, 961 (1984), affd. without published opinion 782 F.2d
179 (11th Cir. 1986). In any event, we believe that the revenue
ruling cited by petitioners is factually distinguishable and that
petitioners' position is not supported by case law.
The nature of petitioner's position with Motorola was such
that he could reasonably have been expected to move his residence
were it not for the personal considerations that kept his family
in Arlington. Petitioner's employment agreement with Motorola
contained express language concerning Motorola's reimbursement
obligations for petitioner's moving, storage, and temporary
housing costs. The agreement expressly provided for Motorola to
pay petitioner's closing and appraisal costs for a house in
Seguin, Texas.
On the basis of the record, it is clear that petitioners
chose not to move their residence in Arlington for personal
reasons. We find that petitioner's employment with Motorola was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011