- 6 -
1216 (6th Cir. 1971). Employment which is temporary may become
indefinite due to changed circumstances or the passage of time.
See Norwood v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 467, 470 (1976). Whether a
taxpayer’s employment is temporary or indefinite is a question of
fact. See Peurifoy v. Commissioner, supra at 61; cf. Harvey v.
Commissioner, 283 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1960), revg. 32 T.C. 1368
(1959).
Petitioner worked on the Fremont project for 27 months.
While petitioner was an employee of a temporary services agency
(CDI) when first employed in Fremont, petitioner had no reason to
believe that such employment would be temporary. In fact, it
ended up becoming a matter of long duration. Thus his employment
was of an indefinite nature. In May 1995, after working on the
project for 12 months, petitioner was hired as an employee of
Raytheon and was asked to stay for phase two of the project.
Indeed, petitioner remained in Fremont until August 1996.
Petitioner stated that a project such as the Fremont project
usually lasts around 2 years; therefore, there was a probability
that petitioner would work on the project for its entire
duration. Furthermore, the statute specifically states that
employment in excess of 1 year is not temporary, see sec. 162(a),
and petitioner’s employment exceeded this limitation.
At trial, petitioner stated that he drove back to Rowland
Heights every weekend for the personal purpose of being with his
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011