Janice Kay Haskins, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 20-1 0692
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

Agency No. 25667-15

JANICE KAY HASKINS,
JULIAN WILLIAM HASKINS,

Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee .
________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the
U.S. Tax Court
________________________
(September 8, 2020)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
This is a tax case. The appellants Janice and Julian Haskins say that Janice’s
work in Afghanistan in 2011-2012 qualified them for a foreign income tax
Case: 20-10692 Date Filed: 09/08/2020 Page: 1 of 4

2

exclusion under 26 U.S.C. § 911. The Tax Court held otherwise; it found that
Janice maintained an abode within the United States during this time and thus did
not qualify for the exclusion. We affirm the Tax Court’s decision.
We review decisions of the Tax Court just as we do “decisions of the district
courts in civil actions tried without a jury.” Comm’r v. Neal, 557 F.3d 1262, 1268-
69 (11th Cir. 2009). We review the Tax Court’s interpretation and application of
the Internal Revenue Code de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
Campbell v. Comm’r, 658 F.3d 1255, 1258 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
Under 26 U.S.C. § 911, “qualified individual[s]” can exclude their foreign
earned income from their gross income, up to a statutory limit, and thereby exempt
such amounts from income tax. A taxpayer must meet two general requirements to
be a “qualified individual”: (1) the taxpayer must have a “tax home” in a foreign
country; and (2) an individual taxpayer must be either a bona-fide resident of a
foreign country, 26 U.S.C. § 911(d)(1)(A), or be physically present in a foreign
country for 330 days. 26 U.S.C. § 911(d)(1)(B).
The Tax Court found, and the Commissioner concedes, that Janice was
physically present in Afghanistan for more than 330 days. The only question for
us, then, is whether Janice had a “tax home” in Afghanistan.
During the relevant time, “tax home” was defined as:
such individual’s home for purposes of section 162(a)(2) (relating to
traveling expenses while away from home). An individual shall not be
Case: 20-10692 Date Filed: 09/08/2020 Page: 2 of 4

3

treated as having a tax home in a foreign country for any period for
which his abode is within the United States.

26 U.S.C. § 911(d)(3) (2017).
1
We must decide, then, whether the Tax Court erred
in concluding that Janice kept an abode within the United States.
To decide where an individual’s abode is located under Section 911(d)(3),
the Tax Court compares and contrasts “the taxpayer’s domestic ties (i.e., his
familial, economic, and personal ties) to the United States with his ties to the
foreign country in which he claims a tax home” during the particular period.
Harrington v. Comm’r, 93 T.C. 297, 307–08 (1989). The court has found that a
taxpayer retained strong ties with the United States when, despite living abroad, he
maintained a bank account in Texas and had a Texas driver’s license. Id. at 309.
The court has also emphasized that an “abode remain[s] within the United States
especially where [the] ties to the foreign country were transitory or limited.” Id. at
308. And it has found that ties were limited and transitory when the taxpayer lived

1
In 2018, it was amended to:

An individual shall not be treated as having a tax home in a foreign country for
any period for which his abode is within the United States, unless such individual
is serving in an area designated by the President of the United States by Executive
order as a combat zone for purposes of section 112 in support of the Armed
Forces of the United States.

26 U.S.C. § 911(d)(3). The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which amended the section,
provided that “[t]he amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2017.” PL 115-123, § 41116(b), 132 Stat. 64, 162. Since the Haskins seek an
exclusion for the 2011-2012 tax term, the amendment does not affect this appeal. Nor does IRS
Publication 54, which also issued in 2018.
Case: 20-10692 Date Filed: 09/08/2020 Page: 3 of 4

4

on military bases, could not have his family live with him, did not travel within a
foreign country, and did not open a bank account in a foreign country. See
Harrington, 93 T.C. at 309; Daly v. Comm’r, 105 T.C.M. (CCH) 1850 (T.C. 2013).
The Tax Court did not err in holding that Janice kept an abode within the
United States or in concluding that she was thus ineligible for the exclusion. The
court found, with good reason, that Janice maintained strong connections
to the
United States in the form of her driver’s license, home in Arizona, and bank
account. See Harrington, 93 T.C. at 309. The court also correctly noted that she
continued to be involved in her family’s finances, as reflected by her supporting
her son’s schooling, paying household bills, and buying gift cards for her husband.
In contrast, her connections to Afghanistan were transitory or limited. See id. at
308. She lived only on military bases, could not travel off of the base, could not
meet with local residents in their homes, did not have a choice in where she lived,
and her family could not join her in Afghanistan. See id. at 309; Daly, 105 T.C.M.
(CCH) 1850. Given her st rong ties to the United States and her weak ties abroad,
the tax court did not err in concluding that she kept her abode within the United
States and was thus ineligible for the foreign tax home exclusion.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 20-10692 Date Filed: 09/08/2020 Page: 4 of 4