@Opus 17 wrote:
If congress only wanted to grant the partial exclusion when you are moving to make more money, they would have said so.
It would be best to stick to the facts rather than fabricating different scenarios that alter the basic hypothetical, which is where a taxpayer retains exactly the same job after moving to a new location and takes a second job (whether that second job is secured before or after the move).
There is an enormous potential for abuse here which it appears you are incapable of detecting. I cannot imagine that the IRS would allow the exclusion given the fact pattern presented by @Vmmatch.
