TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Barbara K. & Ishmial D. Swafford
Docket Number: 6946-08S
Judge: Dean
Opinion Type: summary
Filed: 05/27/2009
Pages: 7

T . .C . Summary Opinion 2009-8 2 UNITED STATES TAX C URT BARBARA K . AND ISHMIAL D . SWAFFO COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV E D, Petitioners v . UE, Responden t Docket No . 6946-08S . F iled May 27, 2009 . Barbara K . Swafford and Ishmial D . wafford, pro sese . Nancy P . Klingshirn , for responden t .DEAN, Special Trial Judge : This c se was heard pursuant ; . to the provisions of section 7463 of the I ternal Revenue Code i n effect when the petition was filed . Pu suant to section 7463(b) , the decision to be entered is not revi e able by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treate d precedent for any othe r case . Unless otherwise indicated, sub s quent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in ef : ct for the year in issue , SEF VE MAY 272001 and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practic e and Procedure . Respondent determined a $1,825 deficiency in petitioners ' B 2006. Federal income tax . The issues for decision are whether petitioners are entitled to a dependency exemption deduction an d a child tax credit for D .V . ' Background Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found . The" st=ipulation of facts and the exhibits received into evidenc e are, 'incorporated herein by reference . When the petition wa s filed,' petitioner s resided in Ohio . ILshmia l D . Swafford (Mr . Swafford) fathered a child, with Laura A . Vogel ( Ms . Vogel) . An agreed entry was filed with a n IV Ifir Ohio ,,State court, requiring Mr . Swafford to make certain chil d support payments . The agreed entry also provides that Mr . Swafford is entitled to claim D .V . as a dependent for Federal and State tax purposes in "even numbered years" if his child support payments are "current in full" ; and if not, then Ms . Vogel i s entitled to claim D .V . It sets-forth Ms . Vogel's and Mr . Swaff .ord's names and Social Security numbers . But Ms . Vogel did not,, sign the agreed entry . Rather, it ;,was signed by Michael P . Kelly, ;"Attorney for [Mr . Swafford]" ; Gayle Walker, Attorney fo r 'The Court refers to minor children by their initials . See Rule 27(a)(3) . The evidence indicates'that D .V . was 14 years old i.n 2006 . 3 - State of Ohio ; John C . Korfhagen, Refere ; and Stephanie Wyler ; Judge . Mr . Swafford's child support paymen s were "current in full " in 2006 . Petitioners, therefore, claime a dependency exemption deduction and a child tax credit for D .V on,their 2006 Form 1040, U .S . Individual Income Tax Return . Respondent, however , sent petitioners a notice of deficiency, .n which he disallowe d the dependency exemption deduction and t e child tax credit . Petitioners did not attach to their 2006 Form 1040 either For m 8332 , Release of Claim to Exemption for phild of Divorced or ' Separated Parents, or the agreed entry : Instead, petitioner s provided respondent with a copy of the a greed entry in respons e to the notice of deficiency . Discussion I . Burden of Proo f The Commissioner's determinations 'n a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove that the determinations . are in error . Rule 142(a) ; Welch v . Helvering, 290 U .S . 111, 115 (1 933) . But the burden of proof on factual issues that affect a t~xpayer's tax liability may be shifted to the Commissioner wher the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to the i sues and the taxpayer ; has satisfied certain conditions . Sec . 74911(a) . There is no dispute - 4 - as ;tol;any factual issue ; accordingly,,j!the .case is decided by th e application of law to the undisputed facts . i II . Dependency Exemption Deductio n I. , Taxpayers may claim dependency exemption deductions for their dependents (as defined in section 152) . Sec . 151(c) . The term "dependent " means a qualifying child2 or qualifying relative .3 Sec . 152 ( a) . But section :152(e )( 1), in pertinent part, provides a general rule that limits the dependency. I exemption deduction as follows : if the child received over one- half of his support during the calendar year from his parents who live apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calenda r year,and the child is in the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the calendar year, then the child is treated as the qualifying child or qualifying relative of the I ZA qualifying child is defined as an individual who : (1)j,,Bears a certain relationship to the taxpayer, such as the taxpayer's child ; (2) has the same principal place'of abode as theitaxpayer for more than one-half of .the taxable year ; (3) ~meets certain age requirements ; and (4) has not provided over o'ne-ha.lf of the individual's own support for the taxable year . Sec . 152 (c) (1) - (3) . . 3A qualifying relative is defined,,as an individual : (1) Who bear's a certain relationship to the taxpayer, such as the taxpayer's child ; - (2) whose gross income for the taxable year is less than the exemption amount ($3,300 for 2006) ; (3) with respect to whom the taxpayer provides over one-half of the individual's support for the taxable year ; and (4) who is not a qualifying child of the taxpayer or of any other taxpayer for the taxable year . Sec . 152(d)(1) and (2) . I 5 - noncustodial parent if certain requiremen s are met .' The requirements are met if :' (1) The custodial parent signs a written declaration (in such manner and form as the Secretary may prescribe) that the custodial parent will not claim the .child1'as a dependent for the taxable year ; and (2) the noncustodial-par ent attaches the written declaration to the oncustodial patent's return for the taxable year . Sec . 152(e)(2) ; sec . 1 .152-4T(a)G,, Q&A-3, Temporary Income-Tax .Regs ., .49 Fe . Reg . 34459 (Aug . 31, 1984) . The written declaration may be made on a form provided by the Internal Revenue Service or a docume t that conforms to its substance . Miller v . Commissioner , 114 C . 184, 190-191 (2000) (citing section 1 .152-4T(a), Q&A-3, Temp rary Income Tax Regs ., su ra) . The written declaration is embo ied in Form 8332, and it incorporates .the requirements of section 152(e)(2) . Id . at 190 . 5 In Miller v . Commissioner , supra at 191-195, the Court stated that in order for the noncustodi 1 parent to claim the dependency exemption deduction, section 152(e)(2) clearl y 4Sec . 152(e) applies to both married parents and parents . who have never been married to one another . 121 T .C . 245, 251 (2003) . . King v . Commissioner , 'Form 8332 requires a taxpayer to furnish : (1) The children's names and the years for whic exemption claims are released ; (2) the custodial parent's signature and the date thereof ; (3) the custodial parent's Soc'al Security number ; and (4) the noncustodial .parent's name and ocial_Security number . Miller v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 184, 1 0 (2000) . irequires the custodial parent's release of the dependenc y ,exemption deduction by the signing of a written declaration t o that effect . Simply attaching a State court order that ;was no t signed by the custodial parent to the=noncustodial parent' s return does not satisfy the express requirements of sectio n 152 ;(e)(2) . Id . at 196 . The mere fact that the State court granted the taxpayer the right to claim the dependency, exemptio n deduction is immaterial because a State court cannot determine issues of Federal tax law . Id . The parties agree that Mr . Swafford is D .V .'s noncustodial { parent : Petitioners'-entitlement to the, dependency exemptio n deduction for D .V . therefore turns on whether they have complie d with .,the requirements of section 152(el)(2), notwithstanding tha t the ;; agreed entry provides that Mr . Swafford may claim D .V . as a dependent in "even numbered years" if his child support payments are "current in full" . See id . at 196 . The agreed entry does not conform''to the substance of For m 8332 because it does not contain the signature of Ms . Vogel o r the date thereof . See id . at 190 ; see also supra pp . 2-3 and note 5 . . In addition, neither the agreed entry nor a Form 8332 , was attached to petitioners' 2006 Form'1040 . See sec . 1 .52 (e) (2) (B) ; Miller v . Commissioner , su ra at 190 . In sum, petitioners have not complied with the requirements of section 1'52 (e) (2) and therefore are not entitled to a dependency' exemption deduction for D .V . Respondent's determination is 7 - sustained . ' III . Child Tax Credi t Taxpayers may claim a child tax cre it for each qualifying child as defined in section 152(c ) who i under age 17 and for whom the taxpayer may claim a dependency exemption deduction under section 151 . Sec . 24(a), (c)(1 ) Because petitioners are not entitle to the dependency exemption deduction for D . V ., they canno claim a child tax credit for her . See id . Respondent ' s d termination is sustained . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entere d for respondent .