DocketNumber: Docket No. 2512-78.
Filed Date: 4/23/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
DAWSON,
FALK,
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and those facts are so found.
Petitioners resided at Reno, Nevada, at the time they filed their petition herein.
Petitioner James W. Hammond, Jr. retired from the United States Marine Corps in 1975. His last duty station was at Camp Pendleton, California. Prior to his retirement, petitioners made two round trips between Camp Pendleton and Reno, Nevada, for the purpose of seeking and purchasing a home in Reno in which to reside after retirement. At the time of those trips, neither petitioner had an offer of employment in Reno, had made arrangements to commence work there, or intended to gain employment there.
OPINION
"Moving expenses" for the purpose of section 217 means only the reasonable expenses "in*548 connection with the commencement of work * * * at a new principal place of work"--
(A) of moving household goods and personal effects from the former residence to the new residence,
(B) of traveling (including meals and lodging) from the former residence to the new place of residence,
(C) of traveling (including meals and lodging), after obtaining employment, from the former residence to the general location of the new principal place of work and return, for the principal purpose of searching for a new residence,
(D) of meals and lodging while occupying temporary quarters in the general location of the new principal place of work during any period of 30 consecutive days after obtaining employment, or
(E) constituting qualified residence sale, purchase, or lease expenses. [Sec. 217(b)(1).]
The inclusion of the word "after obtaining employment" in subparagraph (C), above, makes it abundantly clear that respondent must prevail here. See, also, H. Rep. No. 91-413 (Part 1) (1969), *549 Petitioners' complaint that this provision of the law impermissibly discriminates against them as retiring military personnel is unavailing. The provision applies to petitioners in the same way as to all of the millions of other, military and nonmilitary taxpayers. Treating them the same as everyone else is not discriminatory. "The inequities asserted to inhere in [this provision] * * * whatever may be their persuasiveness as arguments for legislative change, do not rise to the level of constitutional violations of [petitioners'] rights." In accordance with the foregoing,
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, unless otherwise indicated. ↩
2. Pursuant to the order of assignment, on the authority of the "otherwise provided" language of
3. (i)