@Anonymous_ wrote:
@Opus 17 wrote:
So the question in your situation is, did you sell and move because of the 2nd job?
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the move was because of the second job.
Will moving for the second job fall within the safe harbor when nothing with respect to the first (or main) job has changed (e.g., location, rate of pay, et al)? Regardless of the smattering of possible answers to that question potentially put forth, I believe that to be the primary issue here.
If you look at the examples given after the regulation in the link provided by @AmeliesUncle , you will see the examples are all focused on whether you moved because of a change in job location. I don't see any reason why job 1 has any relevance if the reason for the move was the location of job 2.
For example, suppose I am a freelance graphic designer (job 1) living in New York. I am hired by a company that designs theme park rides, so I move to their location in Florida (job 2), but at the same time, I continue to freelance on non-theme park-related projects. I see no reason to think that continuing to work from home on my old freelance job would impair my ability to claim the partial exclusion if the primary reason that I moved was to take the new position with employer #2. (This is a true to life example, by the way—a relative of mine did exactly this.)
Again, for @Vmmatch , the question is did they move because of the 2nd job? Or was the 2nd job something that was independent of the desire to move.
