@Anonymous_ wrote:
@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.
The law and the regulation just say that you have to change the location of your work, and selling the home must be because of the change of location of work. I don't see anything in the law that requires you to prioritize one job over the other, or to prioritize income. For example, if I change job locations to take a new job at lower pay (perhaps because I enjoy the work more), I would still qualify. The sale of the home is because of the change in job location.
If congress only wanted to grant the partial exclusion when you are moving to make more money, they would have said so. Why am I penalized for moving to take a lower paying job that I love?
To make a more current example. Wade lives in city A, and loses his job with the WXY retail chain because the company closes the store due to too much shoplifting. Wade starts driving for Uber, and makes a decent living. Meanwhile Wade is sending resumes all across the country. Wade lands his dream job in oceanography in city B, but it's an entry level job, so Wade will still have to drive for Uber after moving. Your argument would bar the partial exclusion unless Wade can prove he earns more at his entry level job than driving for uber.
I think your argument is reading more into the regulation than is there. The regulation just says you have to move because of a change in your work location. It doesn't say you have to change the location of all your jobs (if you have more than one) or that you have to prioritize your jobs by income.
