Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Foreign Earned Income Exclusion - Physical Presence Test

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Foreign Earned Income Exclusion - Physical Presence Test

    I used to think I understood the Physical Presence Test, but now I'm not so sure. Consider this scenario:

    A taxpayer begins an indefinite assignment to a foreign country on January 1, 2013. He has to return to the US for the last week of May 2013. He also makes an extended trip in the autumn in which there are a full five weeks in which he is not in a foreign country. He plans no travel in the first half of 2014. During 2013, he has $70,000 of foreign source earned income. He chooses the 12-month period from June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2014. He will be present in a foreign country for 330 days during this period, meeting the requirements. Since 214 days of the period will be in 2013, I calculate that his maximum exclusion will be 91,400 x 214/365 = 53,588. However, on p. 14-16 of TTB, the discussion implies that you must also prorate the total foreign source earned income and use the smaller value, although the example given does not really support that conclusion. Prorating the total foreign source earned income would reduce the exclusion to 41,041. I can find nothing in either Pub. 54 or the instructions to Form 2555 that speaks of proration of the foreign source earned income. In particular, the instructions to Form 2555 tell you to "enter [in Part IV] the total foreign earned income you earned and received during the tax year."

    Does anybody have any thoughts on this?
    Evan Appelman, EA

    #2
    Huh!

    Evan,
    I don't see to what you are referring. The right hand column has an example and it is exactly what you would think it should be. Earnings times the ratio of qualifying days divided by 365.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by appelman View Post
      on p. 14-16 of TTB, the discussion implies that you must also prorate the total foreign source earned income and use the smaller value, although the example given does not really support that conclusion.
      I read what you have referenced. Middle of right column, under Exclusion for part of year.

      The text there does say to use the lesser of $92,900 or actual compensation times the ratio.

      Could it be that the language of that sentence from the word "multiplied" should be moved to follow "$92,900?"

      That is supported by Form 2555 and Pub 54, and the TTB example, too.

      Comment


        #4
        Yeah.

        That would do it.

        Originally posted by BP. View Post
        I read what you have referenced. Middle of right column, under Exclusion for part of year.

        The text there does say to use the lesser of $92,900 or actual compensation times the ratio.

        Could it be that the language of that sentence from the word "multiplied" should be moved to follow "$92,900?"

        That is supported by Form 2555 and Pub 54, and the TTB example, too.
        Evan Appelman, EA

        Comment

        Working...
        X