TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Serge M. Lindor
Docket Number: 16035-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/12/2010
Pages: 8

Su ~ ~ ~~9~Lr~yx d £ UNITED STATES TAX COURT Washington , D .C . 2021 7 SERGE M . LINDOR, Petitioner , V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . 0 R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of th e pages of the . transcript . of the trial of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Miami, Florida, on April 23, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In . accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered under Rule 155 . Dated : Washington, D .C . May 12, 2010 (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e 'SERVED '6 3 010 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 Serge M . Lindor v . Commissioner Docket No . 16035-09S 3 April 23, 201 0 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d the following represents the Court's oral findings o f 7 fact and opinion . 8 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 9 deficiency is a-Small Tax Case subject to th e 10 provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenu e 11 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of 12 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 13 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 14 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 15 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 16 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Subsequent 17 section references contained in this bench opinion are 18 to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 19 amended, in effect for 2007 . Rule references are to 20 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 21 Serge M . Lindor appeared pro se . Tracey B . 22 Leibowitz appeared on behalf of respondent . 23 In a notice of deficiency dated March 30, 24 2009, respondent determined a $3,940 deficiency i n 25 petitioner's 2007 Federal income tax . The issues for Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 decision are : (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to a 2 dependency exemption deduction for his child ; (2 ) 3 whether petitioner qualifies as a head of household ; 4 (3) whether petitioner is entitled to a child ta x 5 credit ; and (4) whether petitioner is entitled to the 6 earned income credit claimed on his 2007 Federa l 7 income tax return . Some of the facts have been stipulated an d 9 are so found . At the time the petition was filed, 10 petitioner resided in Miami, Florida . 11 As of the close of 2007 petitioner was no t 12 married . He is the father of D .S .L . 13 During 2007 petitioner was employed . His 14 timely electronically filed 2007 Federal income ta x 15 return shows his wages for that year as $19,419, which 16 is the only item of income reported on the return . 17 Among other things and as relevant here, the income 18 tax liability and refund shown on that return take 19 into account : (1) the standard deduction applicable 20 to a head of household, (2) a dependency exemption 21 deduction for D .S .L ., (3) a child tax credit, as well 22 as an additional child tax credit computed by treating 23, D .S .L . as a qualifying child, and (4) an earned income 24 credit computed by treating D .S .L . as a qualifying 25 child . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 Although not entirely clear from the record, 2 it appears that during 2007 petitioner lived in a 3 rented room in Miami, Florida . He used his aunt's 4 address in Miami as his mailing address to ensur e 5 receipt of items mailed or sent to him . D .S .L . lived 6 with petitioner's former .spouse . The record does not 7 disclose whether there was any formal custod y 8 arrangements in effect during 2007 and .we proceed as 9 though there was not . 10 In the notice of deficiency that forms the 11 basis for this case, respondent : (1) Disallowed the 12 dependency exemption deduction claimed for D .S .L . ; (2) 13 changed petitioner's filing status from head o f 14 household to single, adjusted the standard deduction 15 accordingly, and applied the income tax rat e 16 attributable to that filing status ; (3) disallowed th e 17 child tax credit, as well as the additional child tax 18 credit ; and (4) disallowed the earned income credit . 19 Because of its impact on other issues, we 20 first address petitioner's entitlement to a dependency 21 exemption deduction for D .S .L . 22 In general, a taxpayer is entitled to a n 23 additional exemption deduction for each individual who 24 is a dependent of the taxpayer for the taxable year . 25 Sec . 151(a), (c) . Ignoring exceptions not relevant Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 here, the term "dependent" as used in section 151 and 2 elsewhere in the Internal Revenue Code, means th e 3 taxpayer's qualifying child or a qualifying relative . 4 Sec . 152(a) . 5 Subject to special rules not relevant here, 6 the term "qualifying child" includes, among othe r 7 relationships, a child of the taxpayer who (1) has th e 8 same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one half of the year, (2) meets certain ag e 10 requirements, and (3) has not provided over one half 11 of his or her own support for the taxable year . Sec . 12 152(c) . These requirements can be loosely stated as 13 the relationship test, the residency test, the age 14 test, and the support test . The requirements are in 15 the conjunctive and all must be satisfied . 16 It is clear in this case that the petitioner 17 and D .S .L . did not live together for more than one 18 half of 2007, consequently D .S .L . does not fit within 19 the definition of petitioner's qualifying child under 20 section 152(c) . Furthermore, because it cannot b e 21 determined whether D .S .L . may be treated as the 22 qualifying child of another taxpayer, and the source 23 and extent of D .S .L .'s support is not established, 24 D .S .L . may not be treated as petitioner's qualifying 25 relative under section 152(d) . See specificall y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 section 152 (d) (1) (C) and (D) . It follows tha t 2 petitioner is not entitled to a dependency exemption 3 deduction for D .S .L . for 2007 and respondent' s 4 disallowance of that deduction is sustained . 5 We next consider petitioner's filing status 6 for 2007 . He filed his return as a head of household . 7 Respondent changed his filing status to single . Among 8 other requirements and subject to certain exceptions , to qualify as a head of household a taxpayer mus t 10 maintain as his home a household which constitutes for 11 more than one half of the year the principal place of 12 abode as a member of the household of a qualifyin g 13 child (as defined in section 152(c) and discussed 14 above), or any other person who qualifies as the 15 taxpayer's dependent . 16 D .S .L . is not treated as petitioner' s 17 qualifying child under section 152(c) and petitioner 18 is not otherwise entitled to treat him as a dependent 19 under section 151 . Consequently, petitioner does not 20 qualify as a head of household and respondent' s 21 adjustments relating to the change from that filing 22 status to single are sustained . 23 Next we turn our attention to the credits 24 here in dispute . 25 In general and subject to various conditions Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 and limitations, a taxpayer is entitled to a child tax 2 credit (including an additional child tax credit) with 3 respect to each qualifying child of the taxpayer . 4 Sec . 24(a) . The term "qualifying child" as used in 5 section 24 means an individual who has not attained 6 the age of 17, and who otherwise fits within th e 7 definition of a qualifying child as defined in section 8 152(c) . Sec . 24 (c) . 9 Petitioner treated D .S .L . as his qualifying 10 child for purposes of the child tax credit, including 11 the additional child tax credit claimed on his 2007 12 return . As discussed above, D .S .L . does not fi t 13 within the definition of petitioner's qualifying child 14 under section 152(c) . It follows that petitioner is 15 not entitled to the child tax credit or additiona l 16 child tax credit claimed on his 2007 return . 17 Respondent's disallowances of those credits are 18 sustained . 19 In general, and subject to variou s 20 conditions and limitations, an eligible individual is 21 entitled to an earned income credit . Sec . 32(a) . The 22 definition of an eligible individual for purposes of 23 the earned income credit includes any individual who 24 has a qualifying child . Sec . 32(c) (1) (A) (i) . Fo r 25 purposes of the earned income credit, the term Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t 9 1 "qualifying child" means, with exceptions not relevant 2 here, the qualifying child of the taxpayer as defined 3 in section 152(c) . Sec . 32(c) (3) (A) . 4 The earned income credit claimed on 5 petitioner's 2007 return reflects petitioner's 6 treatment of D .S .L . as his qualifying child fo r 7 purposes of that credit . For the reasons discussed 8 above, because D .S .L . does not fit within th e 9 definition of petitioner's qualifying child under 10 section 152(c), the child does not fit within the 11 definition of petitioner's qualifying child for 12 purposes of the earned income credit . 13 Petitioner is not entitled to the earned 14 income credit claimed on his return, but he might be 15 entitled to an earned income credit computed without a 16 qualifying child . See sec . 32(c) (1) (A) (ii) . If s o 17 that allowance can be reflected on the Rule 155 18 computations that will be ordered . 19 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 20 entered under Rule 155 . 21 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 22 fact and opinion in this case . 23 (Whereupon, at 9 :26 a .m ., the bench opinion 24 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888