@Opus 17 wrote:
I still think you are reading too much into the regulation.
No offense, but I could not care less whether I am reading too much into the Regulation or, at this point, whether you are not gleaning the basic intent of the Regulation. The IRS that would be the ultimate arbiter here and I am relatively confident on how this scenario would be interpreted (i.e., the way in which abuse would be prevented for future transactions).
As a side note, we have veered off topic since @Vmmatch stated that the second job was taken after moving so it is a nonissue in that instance - no exclusion would be allowed.
