@Opus 17 wrote:
I don't see any reason why job 1 has any relevance if the reason for the move was the location of job 2.
You do not see a reason why "job 1 has any relevance"?
How about the fact that this particular safe harbor was designed to reduce, or eliminate, the economic hardship that would result from having to travel further from the taxpayer's principal residence due to a change in their job location (that is singular) (or seek new employment in a new location due to a change in pay, working conditions, et al at the current job).
I do not believe the safe harbor would apply to a relocation for taking a second job when the reason for doing so is merely to make more money by taking a job in addition to a current job.
Finally, I firmly believe that, if examined (which is unlikely regardless), the IRS is simply going to inquire as to what, if anything, has changed with respect to the first job. If the taxpayer cannot show that anything has changed, then the exclusion will likely be disallowed.
