- 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 toPage: 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