Jensen,

Good to hear from you too.  I haven't been following the international news lately, how are things in your part of the world?

I agree with your analysis of the law.  But I didn't see anything specifically mentioned in Terry's post that met any particular qualification.  While I certainly agree that Congress set a pretty low bar on this, it's structured in a "deny, allow" order.  i.e. "you don't qualify for this exemption unless you meet one of the following criteria."

Terry's been a good contributor to the community and seems quite knowledgeable so I assume no one in the household was diagnosed with COVID-19, otherwise this would be a slam-dunk.

So that leaves us in the "adverse financial" box.  It sounds like Terry ruled out the "work hours reduced", at least at the "regular" job.  There was no mention of childcare.  So that leaves us with the "reducing hours" condition for a business with no prior history of hours to which we can compare.

If we can point to a state/governor's order that directly impacts this particular business (or even this general type of business) then we have a box to check on our "72(t) COVID-19 checklist".  i.e. "Taxpayer owned and operated an antique store which was deemed a non-essential business and ordered closed by the State Governor from x/x/20 to x/x/20.  This resulted in a reduction in business hours and adverse financial consequences."  File documented, job done.

So there could easily be facts out there that lead us to conclude this qualifies, but until Terry comes back tomorrow and gives them to us, I can't reach that conclusion with the limited facts presented.

Rick