Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 0
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.
Print the post  


In accordance with IRS Circular 230, you cannot use the contents of any post on The Motley Fool's message boards to avoid tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.