Ernest L. Merlino and Lieselotte M. Merlino v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Good Law
660 F.2d 415·48 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6100·1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16468
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 30, 198180-7591California393 words

Opinion

Opinion

The Merlinos claimed a moving expense deduction of $2,901 after retiring and returning to Seattle from Germany. Because they lived in an apartment awaiting completion of a new home, Mr. Merlino did not work for at least 39 weeks in the 12-month period following their arrival. The Commissioner concluded that I.R.C. § 217(c)(2) prohibited the moving expense deduction and assessed a deficiency. The Tax Court upheld the Commissioner’s ruling.

On appeal, the appellants renew their arguments to the Tax Court: (1) the 12- month, 39-week work requirement should not have begun to run until they had moved into their new residence, at which time Mr. Merlino’s self-employment would have satisfied the work requirement; (2) because Mr. Merlino was a civilian employee of the military before retirement, the I.R.C. § 217(g) provision exempting members of the Armed Forces from the work requirement should apply; and, (3) section 217(i), which allows a deduction for moving expenses incurred by a retiree who worked abroad and upon retirement returns to the United States, should apply retroactively to them.

We do not overturn a Tax Court decision absent a clear mistake of law. Cruttenden v.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.