- 10 -
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 462, 465 (1985), affd. without published
opinion 807 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1986); Kroll v. Commissioner,
supra at 562.
A place of business is temporary if the employment is such
that termination within a short period could be reasonably
foreseen. Albert v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. 129, 131 (1949).
Conversely, employment is indefinite if termination cannot be
foreseen within a “reasonably short period”. Stricker v.
Commissioner, 54 T.C. 355, 361 (1970), affd. 438 F.2d 1216 (6th
Cir. 1971). Whether employment is temporary or indefinite is a
question of fact. Peurifoy v. Commissioner, supra at 60-61.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which any
appeal in this case would ordinarily lie, has expressed 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).]
Subsequent opinions by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reveal that its approach to the exception to the general
“tax home” rule does not differ materially from the view of this
Court. Both courts focus on whether a taxpayer could reasonably
expect his employment outside the area of his residence to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011