- 14 -
that petitioner would work in Los Angeles for more than 1 year.
The record of this case, however, proves otherwise. Mr. Bell,
who testified at trial, anticipated, in late 1993, that
petitioner’s full-time services in Los Angeles would be required
for at least 18 to 24 months in order to develop a "Rolls Royce
accounting department" for Bellmark. Moreover, both petitioner
and Mr. Bell agreed that the compensation arrangement of $100,000
per year plus living expenses was an open-ended arrangement on
which no time limitation was placed.
The Court is satisfied that it was certainly foreseeable, in
late 1993, that petitioner’s full-time services in Los Angeles
would be required beyond a period of 1 year. Additionally,
petitioner’s full-time services in Los Angeles did exceed or
extend beyond 1 year. On this record, the Court holds that
petitioner’s employment in Los Angeles during 1994 was indefinite
and not temporary.
Since petitioner conducted business activities in both Los
Angeles and Memphis during 1994, the Court deems it prudent to
also examine whether petitioner's principal place of business
during 1994 was Los Angeles or Memphis. In the event that a
taxpayer possesses two places of business or employment separated
by considerable distances, his choice of one as his tax home
carries little weight. Instead, courts often apply an objective
test in which they consider: (1) The length of time spent at each
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011