TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Maurice Wilson & Jamia Wilson
Docket Number: 3669-17S
Judge: Buch
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/13/2017
Pages: 4

SYM UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 MAURICE WILSON & JAMIA WILSON, Petitioners, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 3669-17S. 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 with this order to petitioners and respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in this case before Judge Ronald L. Buch at St. Paul, Minnesota 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 under Rule 155. (Signed) Ronald L. Buch Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. December 13, 2017 SERVED Dec 14 2017 Bench Opinion by Judge Ronald L. Buch October 2·, 2017 Maurice Wilson & Jamia Wilson v. Commissioner of Internal 3 Revenue Docket No. 3669-17S THE COURT: The oral findings of fact and opinion may not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This opinion is in conformity with the Internal Revenue Code section 7459(b) and Rule 152(a) of the Tax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 1L Any section references refer to the Internal 12 Revenue Code ¬or Treasury Regulations in effect during the la years at issue. And all rule references are to the Tax 14 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 1S . This case was heard pursuant to section 7463. 16 Under section 7463(b), the decision to be entered in this 11 case is not reviewable by any other court, and this 1 1 20 21 opinion may not be treated as precedent for any other case. By stipulation of the parties, the only issue remaining for the Court to resolve is whether or not 22 minors Z.T. and J.T., the niece and nephew of the 23 petitioners, were qualifying children during the years at 24 issue. But even more narrowly, the parties have resolved 25 everything except the residency test. The residency test requires that those minors share with the petitioners the same place of abode for more than six months, under 4 section 152. I often say that evidence comes in two flavors. Those flavors are documents and testimony. In this case, · there really are no documents evidencing the children's place of abode, but the absence of documents doesn't mean there is an absence of evidence. While contemporaneous documents are, perhaps, the best evidence, what we have is the credible testimony of three witnesses. In particular, I'd note Mrs. Wilson's testimony and her ability to nail down to a specific week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lt 12 13 when the children would have -- her niece and nephew would 14 have moved into her home, the arrangements having been 15 made sometime on or about April 22nd, the date of her c 16 son's birthday, and the children having moved in shortly 17 18 19 20 2:. 22 23 24 2 thereafter. Even if shortly thereafter were several weeks later, it would more than satisfy the six-month test. And so with that, the Court resplves the only remaining issue in favor of petitioners, finding that they have satisfied the residency test. Because there are other concessions in this case, a decision will have to be entered under Rule 155, and we'll follow those normal time frames. Any questions, Ms. Hang? 5 MS. HANG: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any questions, Mr. George? MR. GEORGE: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you both for an excellent presentation of the .case. And with that, we'll simply go off the record. Thank you. MS. HANG: Thank you. (Whereupon, at liO3 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 l'.' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ..