TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Antonio Morton
Docket Number: 8289-14S
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/18/2015
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ANTONIO MORTON, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 8289-14S. ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at San Francisco, California, on May 1, 2015, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. May 18, 2015 SERVED MAY 2 0 2015 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke May 1, 2015 Antonio Morton v. Commissioner Docket No. 8289-14S THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 6 Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case, and 7 8 the following represents the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion. The Oral Findings of Fact and 9 Opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 other case. This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other Court. This opinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure and section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section references hereinafter are to the Internal Revenue Code. The Court has jurisdiction over the present 22 matter based upon a Notice Of Deficiency which was 23 24 25 issued to the Petitioner for the year 2011, which was timely petitioned. The deficiency determined by Respondent was $975. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 The only issue remaining for trial after the parties' agreement and stipulation is whether the 3 Petitioner's entitled to a dependency exemption for a 4 lady identified in the record as Cecelia, who, 5 Petitioner claims, resided with him throughout the 6 7 year 2011. The evidence in the record regarding where Cecelia resided and the support she received is 8 Petitioner's testimony, evidence that Petitioner 9 received from the County roughly $3,000 in payments 10 which were characterized as rent, which amounts 11 Petitioner then gave to Cecelia, and a statement 12 submitted by Petitioner allegedly coming from 13 Cecelia. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We believe that Petitioner's testimony is correct in that Cecelia did, in fact, provide an e-mail to the Petitioner and that e-mail is significant regarding where Cecelia resided and the support she received during the year 2011. Apparently Cecelia had two medical problems in 2011: One related to her heart and the other related to substance abuse, and that she went through a treatment center for substance abuse and also resided at a recovery center, all of which, based upon her e-mail, took place in 2011. These facts are pertinent to the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 application of Internal Revenue Code section 152 in determining whether Petitioner's entitled to a dependency exemption for Cecelia in 2011. In order for the Petitioner to qualify for the dependency exemption he claims relative to Cecelia, she would have to be deemed to be a qualifying relative under section 152(d)(2)(H). That section provides that the individual subject to the claim as a dependent must have the same principal abode of the taxpayer throughout the taxable year, and must be a member of the taxpayer's household. Based upon the information Mr. Morton submitted, specifically Cecelia's e-mail, it does not appear that she was a member of his household throughout the year 2011; rather, that she resided in the substance treatment recovery center at least for a portion of that year. In addition, Mr. Morton would have to show the total amount of support that Cecelia had from all sources and that he provided over one-half of that support. Because Cecelia apparently received significant medical treatment which was paid for by various government agencies, that amount of support would have to be included in the computation. And 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 based upon the testimony and the evidence, it appears that amount would substantially exceed the $3,000 contributed by Mr. Morton. Therefore, Mr. Morton is not entitled to claim Cecelia as a dependent in 2011, and the case should be resolved based upon the other concessions he has made which were noted in the record of trial at the beginning of the trial. Given these circumstances, a decision will be entered for Respondent. And this concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., in the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com