Martin v. Comm'r , 2007 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 48 ( 2007 )

T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-47
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ROBERT H. MARTIN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 5908-05S. Filed March 26, 2007.
Robert H. Martin, pro se.
Mary Ann Waters, for respondent.
COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard
pursuant to section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect
at the time the petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section
7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
other court, and this opinion should not be treated as precedent
for any other case.
Respondent determined a deficiency of $5,485 in petitioner’s
Federal income tax for the year 2003.
The issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled
to: (1) Dependency exemption deductions for two children under
section 151, and (2) a child tax credit under section 24.
Some of the facts were stipulated and are so found. The
stipulation of facts and the annexed exhibits are incorporated
herein by reference. At the time the petition was filed,
petitioner resided at Glen Allen, Virginia.
Petitioner filed his Federal income tax return for 2003 as a
head-of-household under section 2(b)(1) and claimed three
dependency exemption deductions under section 151 and a child tax
credit under section 24. In the notice of deficiency, respondent
disallowed the three dependency exemption deductions and the
child tax credit. Respondent further determined that
petitioner’s filing status was single.
Petitioner was previously married to Olivia L. Martin. They
were divorced in the year 2000. Olivia L. Martin thereafter
married Forrest C. Nuckols. Petitioner and Mrs. Nuckols had
eight children. For the year at issue, five were adults and
three others were dependents. Petitioner claimed the three
dependents on his Federal income tax return for 2003, and Mrs.
- 3 -
Nuckols, his former spouse, also claimed the same three children
on the joint Federal income tax return she filed with her spouse.
At trial, respondent conceded that petitioner was entitled
to the dependency exemption deduction for one of the children
based on the fact that the child lived with petitioner during the
year at issue. Respondent also conceded that petitioner was
entitled to head-of-household filing status and the child tax
credit with respect to that child. The remaining issues are
whether petitioner is entitled to the dependency exemption
deductions for the two other children and the child tax credit as
to them.
The two other children, a son and a daughter, lived with
their mother, Mrs. Nuckols, during the year at issue. Petitioner
paid to his former spouse, during that year, $474 per month for
their support. In addition, petitioner paid health insurance
premiums and medical expenses for the two children and had the
children with him for a 1-week vacation during the year in
Florida. No evidence was presented as to the support provided
the two children by petitioner’s former spouse during the year at
issue or the total monetary amount provided by petitioner other
than the aforementioned monthly cash payments. Petitioner
contends that on these facts, he is entitled to the dependency
- 4 -
exemption deductions for the two children and the related child
tax credit.2
Section 151(c) allows taxpayers an annual exemption amount
for each “dependent” as defined in section 152. Under section
152(a), the term “dependent” means certain individuals, such as a
son, daughter, stepson, or stepdaughter, “over half of whose
support, for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the
taxpayer begins, was received from the taxpayer (or is treated
under subsection (c) or (e) as received from the taxpayer)”.
Section 152(e) provides a special support test in the case
of divorced parents or parents who have never been married with
respect to the dependency exemption deductions for such children.
See King v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 245, 250 (2003). Absent
exceptions not applicable here, if both parents together provide
over half of the support of a child, the parent having custody of
the child for the greater portion of the taxable year is entitled
to the dependency exemption for such child. Sec. 152(e)(1).
With respect to the two children in this case, the Court is
satisfied that petitioner and the children’s mother provided over
half their support during the year at issue. Because the two
children resided with petitioner’s former spouse, who had custody
2
This case is decided on the record without regard to the
burden of proof giving due consideration to sec. 7491.
- 5 -
of the children for the greater portion of the year, the Court
holds that petitioner is not entitled to the dependency exemption
deductions for the two children. The dependency exemption
deduction goes to Mrs. Nuckols who had custody of them for the
greater portion of the year under section 152(e). Respondent,
therefore, is sustained on this issue.
With regard to the child tax credit, under section 24(c)(1),
that credit is allowed to a taxpayer with a qualifying child who
is entitled to the dependency exemption deduction for such child.
Since petitioner is not entitled to the dependency exemption
deduction for the two children, it follows that he is not
entitled to the child tax credit as to those children.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.