Attorney-at-Law

CAN’T CATCH A BREAK

In Uncategorized on 04/14/2021 at 14:56

Unhappily for Erinn Theresa Doyle & David Devon Doyle, 6532-20S, filed 4/14/21, even with CSTJ Lewis (“A Most Delightful Name”) Carluzzo on the case in this off-the-bencher, the law is the sole consideration.

Dave wants “…the Court to allow for an exception to the 39-week rule under the circumstances of their case. They are looking for ‘leniency’, as they put it. Whether it’s called leniency, or equity, or fairness, or sympathy, in effect they are asking that the Court rule in a manner inconsistent with the results demanded by the application of a clear statutory scheme, in this case section 217, to an undisputed set of facts. This the Court cannot do.” Transcript, at p. 8.

To save you the online Google or the dive into your bookshelf, Section 217 governs moving expense deduction, and requires a 39-week stay in the new job unless involuntarily terminated (except for willful misconduct) or moved by the employer although reasonably expecting to stay in new job for the 39 weeks.

Dave’s story is that he moved from CA to HI. to take a job with the State. He quit after less than four (count ’em, four) months on the job.

“He resigned from the job and decided to move back to California for a number of personal reasons, including (1) his belief that certain atmospheric conditions and the frequency of earthquakes presented an unfit environment for his family (as it turned out the area suffered a natural disaster after he left), (2) petitioners’ attempt to sell their California house failed, and (3) Mrs. Doyle’s decision to remain in California in order to care for her father. When Mr. Doyle returned to California…he did not have a job waiting for him.” Transcript, at pp. 4-5.

“Returning to Califnoria [sic] to start a new job was not among his reasons. Consequently the portion of moving expenses allocable to Mr. Doyle’s return to California cannot be deducted, because he did not return there “in connection with the commencement of work at a new principal place of work”. Section 217(a).” Transcript, at p. 7.

Dave realized on the trial that he needs a break, with the law completely against him, but 400 Second Street, NW, in The City on the Potomac, is not the place to look for one.

“While we appreciate and commend petitioners for the decisions, they made in order to ensure and protect the security and health of the members of their family, we are bound in this case, more appropriately constrained, at least with request [sic; should be “respect”] to some of the expenses involved in the moving expense deduction to apply the law as written. Consequently, respondent’s disallowance of the moving expense deduction here in dispute is sustained.” Transcript, at p. 8.

Pore ‘il ole Tax Court has only sympathy, not equity.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: