# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 12 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Bi ll y Edward Arm st ro ng ; Ph oe be J. Arm st ro ng

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

App el la nt s

v.

Co m m is si on er o f In te rn al Rev en ue

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 20 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Dav id Mat th ew Han so n; Mel in da D. Hans on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

App el la nt s

v.

Co m m is si on er o f In te rn al Rev en ue

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Tax Co ur t

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 25 , 20 13
Fil ed : M arch 13 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Bi ll y an d Ph oe be Arm st ro ng an d Dav id an d Mel in da Han so n ap pe al Tax Co ur t

de ci si on s di sa ll owi ng th ei r cl ai m s of de pe nd en cy ex em pt io n de du ct io ns an d ch il d ta x

cred it s fo r a ch il d of each hu sb an d’s pr io r m arri ag e. Fo r each co up l e , o nl y on e ta x

y ear is at is su e, a y ear in whi ch th e ex -wi f e , t h e c u s t o d ia l pa ren t, fai le d to si gn a

do cu m en t st at in g th at sh e “ wil l no t cl ai m su ch ch il d as a de pe nd en t” th at y ear, ev en

th ou gh sh e ha d ag reed to pr ov id e th at do cu m en t if her ex-h us ba nd pa id al l requ ire d

ch il d su pp or t. W e co ns ol id at ed th e ap p e a l s

. Rev ie win g th e Tax Co ur t’s

in te rp ret at io n of th e go ve rn in g st at ut e d e no vo , we co nc lu de th at it s de ci si on s are

co ns is te nt wit h th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of 26 U.S.C. § 15 2( e)(2 ) an d th eref or e affi rm

. See

Nels on v. Co m

m is si on er, 5 68 F.3d 66 2, 6 64 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (st an da rd of r ev ie w).

I. The Sta tute in Q ues tio n

Fed e r a l in co m e ta xp ay ers who are m arri ed an d fil e a joi nt ret ur n, li ke th e

Arm st ro ng s an d th e Han so ns , m ay cl ai m pe rs on al ex em pt io ns fo r th em se lv es an d fo r

each of th ei r “ de pe nd en ts .” 26 U.S.C. (“ I.R.C.”) § 15 1( b)

, (c). Dep en de nt is de fin ed

to in c lu de a “ qu al ifyin g ch il d.” I.R.C. §§ 15 1( c), 15 2( a)(1 ). In ge ne ral , a ta xp ay er

or a m arri ed co up le fil in g joi nt ly m ay on ly cl ai m a de pe nd en cy ex em pt io n if, am on g

ot he r req ui rem en ts

, th e ch il d ha d th e “ sa m e pr in ci pa l pl ace of ab od e as th e ta xp ay er

fo r m or e th an on e-h al f of [th e] tax ab le y ear.” I.R.C. § 1 52 (c)( 1) (B). T hi s rais es an

ob vi ou s qu es ti on : who ge ts to cl ai m th e ch il d dep en de nc y ex em pt io n if th e pa ren ts

are di vo rced an d li vi ng se pa rat el y ? The 19 54 In te rn al Rev en ue Co de in it ia ll y

a dd res se d th is qu es ti on by pr ov id in g th at a di vo rced pa ren t was en ti tl ed t o t h e

ex em pt io n on ly if he or sh e pr ov id ed m or e th an ha lf of th e ch il d’s fin an ci al su pp or t.
I.R.C. § 15 2( a)(1 ) (1 96 4)

.

-2

-By 19 67

, th e Sen at e Fi na nc e Co m m it te e rep or te d, de te rm in in g whi ch di vo rced

pa ren t was en ti tl ed to th e ch il d ex em pt io n un de r th is st an da rd ha d be co m e on e of th e

m os t freq ue n t l y l i t ig at ed in co m e ta x pr ov is io ns ; in res ol vi ng th es e di sp ut es , “ th e

In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e fin ds it se lf in th e po si ti on of an un wil li ng arb it er be twee n

th e co nt en di ng pa ren ts .” S. Rep

. No. 90 -4 88

, rep rin te d in 19 67 U.S.C.C.A.N. 15 27

, 15 28 (1 96 7 )

. U nf

or tu na te ly, th e 19 67 am en dm en t, whi ch ad de d I.R.C. § 15 2( e),

fai le d to so lv e t he ad m in is tra ti ve pr ob le m

. So Co ng res s am en de d § 15 2( e) in th e

Defi ci t Red u c ti on Act of 19 84

, en act in g th e pr ov is io n th at co nt ro ls th e is su es

pr es en te d b y

th es e co ns ol id at ed ap pe al s:

(e) Sp eci al rul e fo r di vo rced pa rent s, et c.

--

* * * * *

(2 ) Ex cept i o n w here cus to di al pa rent rel ea se s cl ai m to

ex emptio n fo r the ye ar

. -- Fo r pu rp os es of pa ra g r a p h (1 ), th e

r e q u i rem en ts de sc rib ed in th is pa rag rap h are m et wit h res pe ct to an y cal en da r y ear i f --

( A) th e cu st od ia l pa ren t si gn s a writ te n de cl arat io n ( i n s u c h

m an ne r an d fo rm

as t he Secr et ary m ay

by regu la ti on s p res cri be )
th at su ch cu st od ia l pa ren t wil l no t cl ai m su ch ch il d as a de pe nd en t fo r an y tax ab le y ear b eg in ni ng in su ch cal en da r y ear, an d

(B) th e no nc us to di al pa r e n t at ta ch es su ch writ te n de cl arat io n to th e no nc us to di al p a r e n t’s ret ur n fo r th e ta xa bl e y ear be gi nn in g du rin g s uc h c al en da r y ear.

I.R.C. § 15 2( e); se e Pu b. Law 98 -3 69 § 42 3( a), 98 St at

. 49 4, 79 9 (J ul y 18

, 19 84 ). To

im pl em en t th is pr ov is io n, th e IRS is su ed F o rm 83 32

, th e writ te n de cl arat io n a

no nc us to di al pa ren t m ay at ta ch to hi s or he r ret ur n to sa ti sf y § 15 2( e)(2 ). Fo rm 83 32

req ui res th e ta xp ay er to pr ov id e “ (1 ) th e na m es of th e ch il dr en fo r [wh om ] ex em pt io n

cl ai m s wer e r e l e a se d, (2 ) th e y ears fo r whi ch th e cl ai m s were rel eas ed

, (3 ) th e

-3

-si gn at ur e of th e cu st od ia l pa ren t co nf irming hi s or he r co ns en t, (4 ) th e So ci al Secu rit y

nu m be r of th e cu st od ia l pa ren t, (5 ) t h e d a t e of th e cu st od ia l pa ren t’s si gn at ur e, an d
(6 ) th e na m e an d th e So ci al Secu rit y nu m be r of th e pa ren t cl ai m in g th e ex em pt io n.”

Mi ll er v. Co m

m is si on er, 11 4 T.C. 18 4, 19 0 (2 00 0)

. The Co m m is si on er’s Tem

po rary

In co m e Tax Reg ul at io ns pr ov id e th at an y de cl arat io n “ m ad e ot he r th an o n [Fo rm

83 32 ] sh al l co nf

or m to th e su bs ta nc e of su ch fo rm .” 26 C.F

. R

. ( “T reas

. Reg .”)
§ 1 .15 2- 4T(a ) Q & A-3 (19 84 ). 1

II . The St ip ul at ed Fa cts

Mr. Arm st ro ng ’s fo rm er sp ou se ha s cu st od y of th ei r two ch il dr en

. Agr eem en ts

acco m pa nyin g th ei r di vo rce pr ov id ed th at Mr. Arm st ro ng m ay cl ai m th e de pe nd en cy

e x e mp t i o n fo r on e ch il d, C.E., an d hi s ex -wif e m ay cl ai m fo r th e ot he r ch il d. The

Arm st ro ng s di d no t att ach a Fo rm 83 32 si gn ed by Mr. Arm st ro ng ’s ex -wif e to th ei r joi nt ret ur n fo r 20 07

, th e ta x y ear in qu es ti on

. In s t e a d

, M r

. Arm st ro ng at ta ch ed a

co py of a 20 03 arb it ra t io n award al lo cat in g th e ex em pt io n fo r C.E. to hi m wit h th e

pr ov is o th at “ co m

m en ci ng wit h th e y ear 20 05 in or de r to cl ai m a ch il d a s a t a x

ex em pt io n th e fat he r m

us t be cu rren t in hi s pa y m en t of ch il d su pp or t as of th e la st da y

of th e fil in g y ear.” Tha t do cu m en t was no t si gn ed by ei th er Mr. Arm st ro ng or hi s ex

wife an d di d no t i n c l u d e th ei r So ci al Secu rit y nu m be rs

. Afte r th e Arm st ro ng s

rece iv ed a n o ti ce of de fic ie nc y ch al le ng in g th e cl ai m ed ex em pt io n fo r C.E., th ey

pr ov id ed th e IRS a co py of a 20 07 m od ifi ed c h i l d su pp or t or de r, si gn ed by hi s ex

wife

, req ui rin g he r to pr ov id e Mr Arm st ro ng “ an ex ecu te d IRS Fo rm 83 32

. . . or it s

eq ui va le nt ” fo r an y y ear in whi ch hi s ch il d s up po rt pa y m en ts are “ cu rren t.” The

The reg ul at io ns were am en d e d t o p ro vi de th at , f or ta x y ears be gi nn in g aft er 1

Ju ly 2, 20 08

, th e writ te n de cl arat io n m ay no t be co nd it io ne d on an y ev en t, in cl ud in g

pa y m en t of ch il d su pp or t, an d an y su bs ti tu te fo r Fo rm 83 32 m us t ha ve be en ex ecu te d
fo r th e so le pu rp os e of se rv in g as th e writ te n de cl arat io n. Treas

. Reg

. § 1.1 52 -4 (e)( 1)

, (h ). The Arm st ro ng s an d th e Han so ns di d no t co m pl y wit h th e am en de d reg ul at io n, bu t t ha t re gu la ti on di d n ot ap pl y to th e ta x years i n q ue st io n.

-4

-pa rti es st ip ul at ed th at (i) Mr. Arm st ro ng was cu rren t in hi s ch il d su pp or t pa y m en ts in

20 07 , a nd (ii ) hi s ex -wif

e di d no t p ro vi de hi m

a co m pl et ed Fo rm 83 32 or an y ot he r

do cu m en t d ecl ari ng th at sh e “ wil l n ot cla im ” C.E. as a de pe nd en t fo r th at tax y ear.

Mr. Ha n s o n ’s f

o rm er sp ou se ha d cu st od y of th ei r so n, Z.H., in 20 08

, th e

cal en da r ta x y ear in qu es ti on

. The Han so ns cl ai m ed a de pe n d e n cy ex em pt io n fo r

Z.H. bu t di d n o t a t t a c h a co m pl et ed Fo rm 83 32 to th ei r joi nt ret ur n. In st ead

, th ey

at ta ch ed a co py of a 19 98 st ip ul at io n an d ag reem en t in whi ch Mr. Han so n’s ex -wif e

ag reed th at “ [s ]o lo ng as [Mr

. Han so n] is cu rren t on ch il d su pp or t pa y m en ts

, [h e] sh al l

be en ti tl ed to cl ai m [Z.H.] as a de pe nd en t on hi s fed eral an d st at e in co m e ta x ret ur ns .”

The ag reem en t was s i g n e d a n d da te d by Mr. Han so n an d hi s ex -wif e an d in cl ud ed

th ei r So ci al Secu rit y nu m be rs

. The pa rti es st ip ul at ed th at (i) Mr. Han so n was cu rren t

on h i s ch il d su pp or t pa y m en ts du rin g ta x y ear 20 08

, an d (ii ) hi s ex -wif e di d no t

pr ov id e hi m a co m

pl et ed Fo rm 83 32 or an y ot he r do cu m en t de cl ari ng th at sh e “ wil l

no t cl ai m ” Z.H. as a d ep en de nt for th at tax y ear.

The Co m m is si on er di sa ll owe d th e ta xp ay ers ’ cl ai m s of de pe nd en cy ex em pt io n

de du ct io ns an d th e acco m pa nyin g ch il d ta x cred it s fo r C.E. an d Z.H. The Arm st ro ng s

an d th e Han so ns pe ti ti on ed th e Tax Co ur t, ch al le ng in g th e res ul ti ng de fic ie nc ie s. In

a pr eced en ti al de ci si on , t h e fu ll Tax Co ur t reject ed th e Arm st ro ng s’ p et it io n ov er a

vi go ro us di ss en t. Arm st ro ng v. Co m m is si on er, 13 9 T.C. 46 8 (2 01 2)

. Tha t sa m e da y , th e Tax Co ur t reject ed th e Han so ns ’ pe ti ti on in a m em or an du m op in io n. Han so n v.

Co m m is si on er, 10 4 T.C.M. (CCH) 8 1 1 ( 2 0 12 ). In bo th cas es , th e Tax Co ur t

co nc lu de d th at th e cl ai m ed de du ct io ns an d cred it s m us t be de ni ed be cau se th e

ta xp ay ers fai le d to pr ov id e a do cu m en t co nf or m in g to th e su bs ta nc e of Fo rm 83 32 fo r

th at tax y ear:

A b as ic el em en t n eces sa ry for sat is fy in g s ect io n 15 2( e)(2 )(A) is

a cu st od ia l p a ren t’s de cl arat io n th at sh e “ wil l no t cl ai m ” th e ch il d as a de pe nd en t fo r a ta xa bl e y ear. A c us to di al pa ren t acco m pl is he s th is on

-5

-a Fo rm 83 32 wit h t he fo ll owi ng st at em en t: “ I ag ree no t to cl ai m * * *
fo r th e ta x y ear”

. Thi s st at em en t is un co n d i t i o n a l; an d in or de r fo r a d o c u ment to co m

pl y wit h th e su bs ta nc e of Fo rm 83 32 an d ul ti m at el y

se ct io n 15 2 (e)( 2) (A), th e de cl arat io n on th e do cu m en t m us t al so be

un co nd it io na l.

Arm st ro ng , 13 9 T.C. at 47 2. The on ly do cu m en t pr ov id ed by Mr. Arm st ro ng th at was

si gn ed by hi s ex -wif

e in cl ud ed a de cl arat io n sh e wou ld no t cl ai m C.E. as a de pe nd en t

in 20 07 “ if Mr. Arm st ro ng ke ep s cu rren t wit h s u p p or t pa y m en ts .” Lik ewis e, Mr.

Han so n’s ex -wif

e pr om is ed no t to cl ai m Z.H. as a de pe nd en t in 20 08 if he was cu rren t

wit h su pp or t pa y m en ts

. As th es e were co nd it io na l rel eas es of th e ex -wiv es ’ cl ai m s,

th e Tax Co ur t co nc lu de d th at ne it he r co up le is en ti tl ed to th e de pe nd en cy ex em pt io n

de du ct io n an d ch il d ta x cred it at is su e. The Arm st ro ng s an d th e Han so ns ap pe al th es e

de ci si on s. W e ha ve ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w fin al de ci si on s of th e Tax Co ur t

“ in th e sa m e m an ne r an d to th e sa m e ex te nt as de ci si on s of th e di st ric t co ur ts in ci vi l

act io ns tri ed wit ho ut a jury.” I.R.C. § 7 48 2( a)(1 ).

II I. Dis cus si on

On ap pe al

, ta xp ay ers arg ue th at ne it he r I.R.C. § 15 2( e)(2 ) no r it s im pl em en ti ng

Treas ur y Reg ul at io ns req ui re th at a n o nc us to di al pa ren t’s en ti tl em en t to th e

de pe nd en cy ex em

pt io n be un co nd i t i o n a l. By en act in g th e 19 84 am en dm en t “ to

si m pl ify th e pr oc es s,” th e Arm st ro ng s as se rt, “ Co ng res s ne ve r wav ered fro m it s in te nt

th at th e pa ren t en ti tl ed t o t h e de du ct io n be th e on e who rece iv ed it .” Here, bo th

co up le s su bm it te d do cu m en ts in whi ch ex -wiv es ag reed th at Mr. Arm st ro ng an d Mr.

Han so n were en ti tl ed to th e ex em pt io ns in an y y ear th ey were cu rren t wit h th ei r ch il d

su pp or t ob li g a t i on s, an d it is un di sp ut ed th ey were cu rren t in th e ta x y ears in

qu es ti on

. The refo re, the do cu m en ts su bm it te d in li eu of a Fo rm 83 32 si gn ed by th e

cu st od ia l pa ren ts “ co nf

or m [ed ] to th e su bs ta nc e” of Fo rm 83 32

, an d th e ta xp ay ers are

en ti tl ed to th e d ep en de nc y ex em pt io n a nd ch il d t ax cred it for C.E. and for Z.H.

-6

-Our an al y si s m us t be gi n wit h th e te xt of th e st at ut e. N. St at es Po wer Co

. v.

Uni te d St at es , 73 F.3 d 76 4, 76 6 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 51 9 U.S. 86 2 (1 99 6)

. Sect io n

15 2( c)(1 )(B) pr ov id es th at

, to cl ai m a “ qu al ifyin g ch il d” as a de pe nd en t, t he ch il d

m us t l iv e wit h t he tax pa y er fo r m or e th an ha lf th e ta xa bl e y ear. Th us , th e cu st od ia l

pa ren t i s en ti tl ed to th e de du ct io n. Sect io n (e)( 2) th en pro vi de s t ha t a n on cu st od ia l

pa ren t may c l a i m th e ch il d as a de pe nd en t if he or sh e at ta ch es to th e ta x ret ur n a

writ te n de cl a r a t io n si gn ed by th e cu st od ia l pa ren t an d de cl ari ng th at th e cu st od ia l

pa ren t “ wi ll no t cl ai m su ch ch il d as a de pe nd en t” in th at cal en da r y ear. A co nd it io na l

de cl arat io n si m

pl y do es no t m eet th is req ui rem en t. As th e Tax Co ur t no te d, whe n Mr.

Arm st ro ng ’s ex -wif

e de cl ared th at sh e wil l n o t c la im th e ex em pt io n if he ke ep s

cu rren t wit h su pp or t pa y m en ts

, sh e “ th ereb y de cl ared th at if he do es no t ke ep cu rren t,

th en sh e wil l cl ai m th e ch il d as a de pe nd en t.” Arm st ro ng , 13 9 T.C. at 4 74

. The

do cu m en ts su bm it te d by th e ta xp ay ers m erel y to ld th e IRS th at th e cu st od ia l pa ren ts
mig ht no t cl ai m th e ex em pt io ns fo r C.E. an d Z.H. in an y pa rti cu la r ta x y ear, no t th at

th ey wi ll no t cl ai m

th e ex em pt io ns

.

The ta xp ay ers arg ue th at § 15 2( e)(2 )(A) is am bi gu ou s be cau se th e st at ut e do es

no t de fin e “ writ te n de cl arat io n” an d de sc rib e it s co nt en ts

. Bu t th ere is no am bi gu it y

in th e te rm “ wil l no t cl ai m .” Mo reo ve r, th e pl ai n te xt of th e 19 84 am en dm en t m ak es

cl ear th at Co ng res s in te nd ed to rem ov e th e IRS fro m th e co nt en ti ou s an d bu rd en so m e

pr oc es s of de te rm in in g whi ch di vo rced sp ou se is en ti tl ed to th e ch il d de pe nd en cy

de du ct io n. Am en de d § 15 2( e)(2 ) is en ti tl ed

, “ Exc ep ti on whe re cu s t o d ia l pa ren t

re le as es cla im

to ex em pt io n.” (Em

ph as is ad de d.) The sta tu te en ti tl es th e cu st od ia l

pa ren t to cl ai m th e ex em

pt io n bu t al lo ws th e cu st od ia l pa ren t to tra ns fer th is cl ai m to

th e n on cu st od ia l p aren t by wr it te n r el ea se

.

The ta xp ay ers arg ue le gi sl at iv e hi st or y an d “ cl ear pu bl ic po li cy ” de m on st rat e

th at Co ng res s in te nd ed th at § 15 2( e)(2 ) rewar d no nc us to di al pa ren ts wit h th is fed eral

ta x be ne fit if th ey co m

pl y wit h co nd it io ns , of

te n or de red by st at e co ur ts

, th at th ey pa y

ch il d su pp or t. Bec au se th e te xt of § 15 2( e)(2 ) so pl a i n l y r eq ui res an un co nd it io na l

-7

-rel eas e of th e cu st odi al sp ou se ’s ex em pt io n, “ le gi sl at iv e hi st or y an d po li cy arg um en ts

are at be st in te res ti ng , a t wor st di st ract in g an d m is le ad in g, an d in ne it he r cas e

au th or it at iv e.” N. St at es Po wer, 73 F.3 d at 76 6. Bu t it is no ta bl e th at t h e H ou se

W ay s an d Mea ns Co m

m it te e, in ex pl ai ni ng th e reas on s fo r am en di ng § 15 2( e)(2 ) in

19 84 , con fir m ed what we co ns id er t he pl ai n m ean in g o f th at am en dm en t:

The co st to th e pa rti es an d t he Gov ern m en t to res ol ve th es e di sp ut es is
rel at iv el y hi gh an d th e Gov ern m en t ge ne ral l y h a s li tt le ta x rev en ue at

st ak e in th e ou tc om e. The co m m it te e wis he s to pr ov id e m or e cert ai nt y by al lo win g th e cu st od ia l sp ou se th e ex em pt io n un le ss th a t s p o u s e

w a i v es hi s or he r rig ht to cl ai m th e ex em pt io n. Thu s, de pe nd en c y di sp ut es be twee n pa ren ts wil l be res ol ve d wit ho ut th e in v o l ve m en t of
th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e.

H. Rep

. No. 98 -4 32 pt

. I I

, a t 14 98 -9 9, rep rin te d in 19 84 U.S.C.C.A.N. 69 7, 11 40
(1 98 4) . The Tax Co ur t’s d eci si on s i n t he se cas es are t ru e to th at in te nt

.

The ta xp ay ers fu rth er arg ue th at st at e co ur ts of te n a l l o c a t e th e fed eral

de pe nd en cy ex em

pt io n du rin g d i v o rce pr oc eed in gs , an d pr in ci pl es of fed eral is m

req ui re th e IRS an d t he fed eral co ur ts to res pe ct th os e al lo cat io ns

. Thi s co nt en ti on

is wit ho ut m eri t. “ The st at e la w crea te s le ga l in te res ts bu t th e fed er a l st at ut e

de te rm in es whe n and ho w th ey sh al l be ta xe d.” Uni te d St at es v. Mit ch el l, 40 3 U.S.

19 0, 19 7 (1 97 1) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Dete rm in in g who is en ti tl ed to fed eral in co m e

ta x e xe m pt io ns , ded uc ti on s, an d c red it s i s en ti rel y a m at te r of fed eral law, fo r th es e

are qu es ti on s of “ whe n an d ho w th ey sh al l be ta xe d.” St at e co ur ts ap pl y in g st at e la w

m ay al lo cat e cl ai m s an d pr op ert y rig ht s in th e di ss ol ut io n of a m arri a g e , in cl ud in g

fed eral ta x ad va nt ag es , an d Co ng res s can ba se th e gr an t of fed eral ta x ad va nt ag es on

th os e st at e co ur t act io ns

. Bu t whe th er th e ta xp ay ers are en ti tl ed to th e cl ai m ed

d e p e n d e n c y e x em

pt io ns is a qu es ti on of fed eral la w. Of co ur se , if a vi ol at io n of a

st at e co ur t or de r wro ng ly de pr iv es th e in te nd ed be ne fic ia ry of a fed eral ta x ad va nt ag e,

th e st at e co ur t u nq ue st io na bl y ret ai ns au th or it y

to rem ed y

th at vi ol at io n.

-8

-Fi na ll y , th e Arm st ro ng s arg ue th at

, ev en if th ey di d no t co m pl y wit h th e

req ui rem en ts of § 15 2( e)(2 ), th ey di d al l th at reas on ab ly c o ul d be ex pe ct ed an d

th eref or e de se rv e eq ui ta bl e rel ie f fo r th ei r su bs ta nt ia l co m pl ia nc e. W e symp a t h i ze

wit h no nc us to di al pa ren ts who are en ti tl ed to rece iv e do cu m en ts ne ces sa ry to su pp or t

th ei r cl ai m s fo r fed eral de pe nd en cy ex em pt io ns an d ch il d ta x cred it s an d th ei r fo rm er

sp ou se s vi ol at e co nt ract ua l or co ur t-o rd ered ob li ga ti on s to pr ov id e th os e do cu m en ts

. B u t Co ng res s in th e 19 84 am en dm en t to § 15 2( e)(2 ) pr ecl ud ed at te m pt s to re med y

su ch wro ng s in fed eral in co m e ta x pr oc eed in gs

. “ W e are no t at li be rty to di gr es s fro m

th e pr ov is io ns of th e go ve rn in g st at ut es m erel y be cau se a cas e m ay pr es e n t ha rd

fact s.” Feh rs Fi n. Co

. v. Co m m is si on er, 48 7 F.2 d 18 4, 18 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 73 ) (u nt im el y

fil in g of req ui red do cu m en t di d no t su bs ta nt ia ll y co m pl y wit h I.R.C. § 30 2)

, cert

. de ni ed , 41 6 U.S. 9 38 (19 74 ).

Fo r th es e reas on s, we co nc lu de th at th e Tax Co ur t co rrec tl y de ci de d th at Bi ll y

an d Ph oe be Arm st ro ng were no t en ti tl ed to cl ai m a de pe nd en cy ex em pt io n de du ct io n

fo r C.E. in 20 07

, an d th at Dav id an d M e l i n d a H a n so n were no t en ti tl ed to cl ai m a

de pe nd en cy ex em

pt i o n d e d uc ti on fo r Z.H. in 20 08

. Sect io n 24 (a) of th e In te rn al

Rev en ue Co de pe rm it s ta xp ay ers t o t a k e a ch il d ta x cred it “ wit h res pe ct to each

qu al ifyin g ch il d of th e ta xp ay er fo r whi ch th e ta xp ay er is al lo wed a de du ct io n un de r

s e c t io n 15 1.” Thu s, ou r co nc lu si on th at ne it he r co up le was en ti tl ed to a de d u c t i o n

un de r § 1 51 m ean s t ha t n ei th er was en ti tl ed to a ch il d t ax cred it for th at ch il d.

The de ci si on s o f th e Tax Co ur t ar e aff irmed.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-