TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Noreen Tusipo Richardson
Docket Number: 26116-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/26/2010
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 NOREEN TUSIPO RICHARDSON, Petitioner v . ) Docket No . 26116-08S . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent O 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 the pages of the transcript of the proceedings in the above case before Judge Robert P . Ruwe at San Francisco, California, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered on February 4, 2010 . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for petitioner . (Signed) Robert P . Ruwe Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . February 26, 2010 SERVED NEAR = 3 2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge Robert P . Ruw e February 4, 201 0 Noreen Tusipo Richardson v Commissioner Docket No . 26116-08 5 3 THE COURT : The following will be the Court' s bench opinion in this case . This case was heard pursuant to the provisions o f section 7463, the Internal Revenue Code, in effect when th e petition was filed . Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court , and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for an y other case . Respondent determined a deficiency of $3715 i n Petitioner's federal income tax for the taxable year 2006 . The issues for decision for the taxable year 2006 are , number one, is Petitioner entitled to a dependency exemptio n deduction under section 151(a) for her two minor children . Number two, is Petitioner entitled to head-of - household filing status . Number three, is Petitioner entitled to the chil d tax credit . And number four, is Petitioner entitled to the , earn e d i ncome t ax cre di t . Some of the facts in this case have bee n lire 'RP2 stipulated by the parties and A so found . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 The parties agree that if Petitioner's two mino r 2 childrreRn are her "qualifying children" as defined in section 3 152~~of the Internal Revenue Code, then she is entitled t o 4 claim them as dependents, and she is also entitled to 5 prevail on the other issues in dispute . 6 With respect to whether Petitioner's mino r 7 children qualify under section 152, the only issue i n 8 dispute is whether the children had the same principal place 9 of abode as Petitioner for more than one half of the taxable 10 year 2006 , as required by section 152(c )( 1)(B) . 11 Respondent disputes this factor based on the fact 12 that there was a court order (that' s ( that's a state court order)n 13 existence prior to and during most of 2006 that designated 14 the father of Petitioner's children as the custodial parent 15 of the children . This custody issue was in litigation 16 during 2006, and on December 6th, 2006, the state cour t 17 finally modified the existing order and gave custody of the 18 two children to Petitioner . Petitioner has had lega l 19 custody since then . 20 Prior to this modification in December 2006, the 21 record indicates that Petitioner and the father were having 22 continuing disputes about the custody and visitation rights 23 concerning the children . The disputes sometimes resulted in 24 police involvement . 25 The official county child support records ar e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 inconsistent with the court custody order that was in 2 existence until December of 2006, in that the child suppor t 3 records indicate that during 2006 and during prior periods, OR 4 that Petitioner was the custodial parent and the father wa s 5 not the custodial parent . These support records als o 6 indicate that the father was consistently delinquent in his 7 support obligations . 8 Petitioner testified that even though the custody 9 order was not modified to give her custody until December 10 2006, she actually had physical custody of the two mino r 11 children for 188 days during 2006 and that the two children 12 resided with her for these number of days . She als o 13 testified that she kept records of those day n thatnwere kept arj RK *ese ref 0(,dsRpI 14 originally as part of her dispute with the father and .the 15 instances where she had to call the police regarding the 16 father . 17 Petitioner presented a monthly summary of thes e 18 days . She also testified and submitted documents indicating 19 that the father had a criminal record and did not meet his 20 support obligations during 2006 and prior years . 21 The totality of the evidence indicates a confused 22 domestic situation . However, we found that Petitioner's 23 testimony was credible and that she has established by a 24 preponderance of the evidence that the principal place of 25 abode of her two minor children was at Petitioner' s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 19 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 6 residence during the year 2006 . This finding resolves al l of the other issues in Petitioner's favor . Therefore, decision will be entered fo r Petitioner . That concludes the Court's bench opinion . THE CLERK : All rise . THE COURT : Okay, thank you . (Whereupon, at 10 :47 a .m ., the bench opinion i n the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) / / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888