TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Pedro Manzueta
Docket Number: 1092-18S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/10/2019
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 PA PEDRO MANZUETA, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 1092-18S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) 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 Chief Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at New Orleans, Louisiana, 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, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 10, 2019 SERVED Apr 10 2019 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo 3 APril 2, 2019 Pedro Manzueta v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 1092-18S THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and OPinion (bench opinion). Section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant periods, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 13 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 14 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 15 deficiency is a small tax case subject to the provisions 16 of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 174. Pursuant to 17 18 section 7463(b) the decision entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Except as 19 Provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be 20 21 cited as authority. Pedro Manzueta appeared on his own behalf. John 22 K. Parchman appeared on behalf of respondent. 23 24 25 Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner lived in Louisiana. 4 In a notice of deficiency dated October 23, 2017 (notice), respondent determined a $4,393 deficiency in Petitioner's 2016 Federal income tax. According to the notice, petitioner: (1) overstated the income reported on a Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, included with his 2016 Federal income tax return (return), which was prepared by a paid income tax return preparer; (2) is not entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for his brother or his sister; (3) is not entitled to the earned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 income credit claimed on the return; and (4) is not 11 entitled to a child tax credit. 12 Under the circumstances, the critical issue for 13 decision is whether petitioner's brother or sister fits 14 within the definition of a qualifying child for purposes 15 of the dependency exemption deductions and credits here in 16 dispute. For the following reasons, we find that neither 17 18 19 20 21 does, and summarize below the consequences of that finding. Depending upon a taxpayer's income and subject to numerous limitations and conditions, generally a taxpayer is entitled to a dependency exemption deduction, 22 an earned income credit and a child tax credit for each 23 qualifying child of the taxpayer. In general and subject 24 to various limitations, the term "qualifying child" means 25 with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, an 5 individual who satisfies several conditions or tests set forth in the statute. See sec. 152(c). We need address only one of those conditions, that is the one commonly referred to as the residency test. See sec. 152(c)(1) (B). That test requires that the taxpayer and the individual have the same "principal place of abode *** for more than one-half of the taxable year". Taking into account the places where the taxpayer and the individuals lived during the taxable year, the residency test is a simple mathematical count-the-days test that must be satisfied with mathematical prec1slon. Petitioner bears the burden of proving to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 establish that respondent erred by disallowing the earned 14 income credit and child tax credit. See Rule 142(a). At 15 trial he offered no documents in support of that burden. 16 Petitioner's failure to offer any documents in support of 17 his burden might be due to his expectation that he would 18 have more time to do so, but the procedural history of the 19 case shows that he did not take advantage of numerous 20 OPPortunities to provide supporting documentation to 21 22 respondent previous to the trial. As it turned out, the only evidence petitioner offered in support of his burden 23 of Proof was his testimony. 24 Although we find that petitioner was forthcoming 25 in describing his living conditions during the year in onners 6 issue, his testimony at trial was not sufficiently precise enough to support a finding that his brother and sister, or either one of them, lived with him for more than one half of 2016. That being so, neither individual fits 1 2 3 4 5 within the definition of petitioner's qualifying child. 6 7 8 9 Because neither child may be treated as his qualifying child, it follows that he is not entitled the earned income credit or child tax credit claimed on the return. see sec 32(a),(c)(1) (A) and (3); and sec. 24(a),(c) (1). 10 Respondent's disallowances of those credits are sustained. 11 12 13 14 Because the deficiency determined in the notice results entirely from the disallowances of the earned income credit and the child tax credit claimed on the return, we need not resolve the dispute between the 15 Parties regarding petitioner's entitlement to the 16 dependency exemption deductions claimed on the return or 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the extent of the income reported on his return. Under the circumstances, neither resolution would affect the calculation of the deficiency determined in the notice. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's bench opinion in his case. (Whereupon, at 1:43 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) c.nns s