When Congress is vague, IRS has little choice. Here's what the law says about the change in employment: "such sale or exchange is by reason of a change in place of employment, health, or, to the extent provided in regulations, unforeseen circumstances." That's it. Congress cross references provisions all the time and could have easily tied the change in employment to the moving expense deduction requirements, but didn't. Thus I (and at least Justice Scalia) find it difficult to infer that this is what they meant.I've gotten a lot out of Bob Bruss' columns over the years, but he frequently mentions that he's not a tax expert and people should consult their advisors. As near as I can tell, he had no law behind his reference to moving expenses.I think Peter's given the best advice in this thread. If you think you can make a case that the sale was related to the job change, I say go for it and let IRS, pointing only to the law, tell you why you're wrong.Phil Marti Thanks for all your help Phil and everyone else. You guys are a great resource.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra