Barrett v. Comm'r

T.C. Memo. 2008-284
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WAYNE K. BARRETT, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 15601-06. Filed December 17, 2008.
Wayne K. Barrett, pro se.
Edwina Jones, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WELLS, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $4,395
in petitioner’s 2004 Federal income tax. The issues to be
decided are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to section 1511
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
- 2 -
dependency exemption deductions for his minor children for
taxable year 2004; and (2) whether petitioner is entitled to a
section 24(a) child tax credit for taxable year 2004.
Background
At the time of filing the petition, petitioner resided in
North Carolina.
Petitioner timely filed his 2004 Federal income tax return
and claimed dependency exemption deductions and the child tax
credit with respect to his minor children: R.K.B., J.O.B., and
J.D.B. (hereinafter collectively the children).2
Petitioner did not live with any of the children at any time
during 2004. At all times during 2004 the children lived with
their mother, Jill R. Kingdon (hereinafter Ms. Kingdon), who had
sole legal custody.
Petitioner and Ms. Kingdon provided all of the children’s
support in 2004.
Petitioner and Ms. Kingdon did not live together at any time
in 2004.
The record does not contain a written declaration, signed by
Ms. Kingdon, stating that she will not claim the children, or any
one of them, as dependents for the 2004 taxable year; no such
declaration was attached to petitioner’s 2004 tax return.
2
The Court refers to minor children by their initials. See
Rule 27(a)(3).
- 3 -
Discussion
Dependency Exemptions
Section 151(c)(1) provides that an exemption is allowed for
each dependent who is a child of the taxpayer, subject to age
limitations not in issue here. Section 152(a) defines dependent
to include the son or daughter of a taxpayer over half of whose
support was received from the taxpayer for the calendar year.
There is a special rule where the parents of a child live apart
for the last half of the year and one or both of the parents have
custody of the child for more than half of the year. See sec.
152(e)(1). In that case, if the parents together provide over
half of the child’s support for the year, section 152(e)
determines which parent is entitled to claim the child as a
dependent. Generally, the custodial parent (the parent having
custody for a greater portion of the year) is treated as
providing over half of the support for that child.3 Sec.
152(e)(1). However, the noncustodial parent may claim the
dependency exemption deduction if the custodial parent executes a
written declaration releasing the custodial parent’s claim to the
deduction. Sec. 152(e)(2).
Petitioner and Ms. Kingdon provided all of the support for
the children in 2004. At all times in 2004 Ms. Kindgon had sole
3
This is true whether or not the parents have ever been
married to one another. King v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 245, 251
(2003).
- 4 -
legal custody of the children and they lived with her, so she was
the custodial parent. Ms. Kingdon never executed a written
declaration releasing her right to claim the children as
dependents for taxable year 2004. Accordingly, Ms. Kingdon is
deemed to have provided over half of the children’s support for
the year. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to dependency
exemption deductions for the children for taxable year 2004.
Child Tax Credits
Subject to limitations based on adjusted gross income, a
taxpayer is entitled to a child tax credit with regard to each
qualifying child of the taxpayer. Sec. 24(a). A qualifying
child for purposes of the child tax credit is a child: (a) For
whom the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for a dependency
exemption under section 151; (b) who is under the age of 17; and
(c) who bears a relationship to the taxpayer as set forth in
section 32(c)(3)(B). Sec. 24(c). The age and relationship tests
are not in dispute in the instant case. However, petitioner is
not entitled to a dependency exemption deduction with regard to
any of the children, so none of the children is a qualifying
child for purposes of section 24(a). Consequently, petitioner is
not entitled to a child tax credit for taxable year 2004.
- 5 -
We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of
the parties that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be
without merit, irrelevant, or moot.4
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
4
Petitioner’s main argument seems to be that an error in his
tax preparation software resulted in his underpayment of tax for
2004. Obviously, that is not relevant to the question of whether
petitioner owes the deficiency respondent determined for taxable
year 2004.