DocketNumber: No. 26281-06S
Judges: "Thornton, Michael B."
Filed Date: 9/8/2008
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
THORNTON, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of
Respondent determined a $ 5,827 deficiency in petitioner's 2005 Federal income tax. The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption deductions for two of his girlfriend's children; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to the child tax credit; (3) whether petitioner is entitled to head of household filing status; (4) whether petitioner is entitled to the child care credit; and (5) whether petitioner is entitled to the earned income credit.
The parties have stipulated some facts, which we incorporate herein. When he petitioned this Court, petitioner *117 resided in New York.
In 2005 petitioner was unmarried. He worked as a building superintendent in New York City. As part of his compensation, he was provided with an apartment in the building.
Petitioner's girlfriend, Maria Valdez (Ms. Valdez), had four children, including J.P. and D.F., Discussion The burden of proof is on petitioner to show that he is entitled to the claimed dependency exemptions and other tax benefits at issue in this *118 case. See A taxpayer is entitled to claim a dependency exemption only if the claimed dependent is a "qualifying child" or a "qualifying relative" as defined under A qualifying child is defined as the taxpayer's child, brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister, or a descendant of any of them. An individual who is not a qualifying child may still, under certain conditions, qualify as a dependent if he or she is a qualifying relative. Petitioner alleges that in 2004 Ms. Valdez and her children were evicted from their Bronx *120 apartment and came to live with him in his Manhattan apartment, where he claims they lived throughout 2005. The limited documentary evidence that petitioner presented does not corroborate this claim. For instance, although petitioner offered into evidence D.F.'s proof of school registration, it is for the year 2006 rather than 2005 and shows D.F. as residing at a Bronx address. This and other deficiencies in the record and inconsistencies in petitioner's testimony leave us unpersuaded that petitioner and the claimed dependents had the same principal place of abode for all of 2005. Moreover, petitioner maintained no receipts or records of any payments made on J.P.'s or D.F.'s behalf. Petitioner has not established the amount of support, if any, he paid on behalf of J.P. and D.F. or that his contributions constituted over one-half of their support. Respondent's determination on this issue is sustained. 2. 3. As previously discussed, neither J.P. nor D.F. is a qualifying child of petitioner, and petitioner is not entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for J.P. or D.F. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to head of household filing status for 2005. 4. As previously discussed, J.P. and D.F. are not qualifying children of petitioner within the meaning of Because J.P. and D.F. bore no familial relationship to petitioner, they were not qualifying children. See To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in effect for the year in issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. The Court uses initials when referring to a minor child. See
3. Petitioner has not claimed or shown that he meets the requirements under
4. On Form 2441, Child and Dependent Care Expenses, attached to his Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2005 petitioner's claimed employment-related expenses consisted of $ 6,000 allegedly paid to Ms. Valdez to care for J.P and D.F. Inconsistently, Ms. Valdez testified that she had no income for 2005.↩