TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Nasra Moustafa Arafat
Docket Number: 30511-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/16/2009
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT Washington, D .C . 2021 7 NASRA MOUSTAFA ARAFAT , Petitioner, v . Docket No . 30511-08S 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 th e pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R, : Carluzzo at Miami, Florida, on November 20, 2009, 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 . (Signed) Lewis R . Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . December 16, 2009 SERVED DEC 17 2009 s 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 November 20, 200 9 3 Arafat v . Commissioner Docket No . 30511-08S 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and 6 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 7 fact and opinion . The oral findings of fact an d 8 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 9 other case . 10 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 11 deficiency is a small tax case conducted pursuant to 12 the provisions of § 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code 13 of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of the 14 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . This bench 15 opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by § 16 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a s 17 amended, and Rule 1521of the Tax Court Rules of 18 Practice and Procedure . 19 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, section 20 references are to thellnternal Revenue Code of 1986, 21 as amended, in effect for 2006 . Rule references are 22 to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 23 Nasra M . Arafat appeared pro se . Kimberly Higgins 24 appeared on behalf of Respondent . In a notice of 25 deficiency dated October 10, 2008, Responden t Heritage Reporting Corporation (2b2) 628-4888 4 1 determined a deficiency of $238 in Petitioner's 2006 2 federal income tax . 3 The parties have resolved all issues arising 4 from the adjustment made in the notice of deficiency . 5 The issues for decision are : (1 ) whether Petitione r 6 qualifies as a head of household, which is a different 7 filing status than claimed-on her 2006 return, (2 ) 8 whether Petitioner is,entitled to an earned income 9 credit not claimed on her 2006 federal income tax 10 return , and (3 ) whether Respondent ' s claim for an 11 increased deficiency is properly before the Court . 12 Some of the facts have been stipulated and 13 are so found . At the time the petition was filed, 14 Petitioner resided in Florida . Petitioner was not 15 married as of the close of 2006 . She lived in a 16 rented apartment during that year . Pursuant to a 17 divorce decree enterediyears before, she was allowed 18 limited visitation rights with respect to her 19 children, but all of her children were welcome at her 20 residence at any time . None of her children resided 21 with Petitioner for more than one-half of 2006 . 22 As relevant here, Petitioner's 2006 federal 23 income tax return shows her filing status as "single" 24 and $14,034 in adjusted gross income . There is no 25 earned income credit claimed on that return . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 Petitioner now claims that she qualifies as a head of 2 household for 2006, and she further claims entitlement 3 to an earned income credit as an eligible individua l 4 with a qualifying child . Respondent opposes both 5 claims . 6 In an oral motion made at trial, Respondent 7 now requests an increased deficiency because , 8 according to Respondent, the deficiency determined in 9 the above-referenced notice of deficiency i s 10 understated due to a computational error . 11 Specifically, Respondent claims that a rebate refund 12 was not taken into account in the computation of the 13 deficiency . See § 6211 . 14 We turn our attention first to Petitioner's 15 claims . Both depend upon whether Petitioner had a 16 qualified child during 2006 as defined in § 152(c) . 17 Although Petitioner is the parent of several children, 18 none of her children lived with her for more than one- 19 half of 2006 . Consequently, none of her children fit 20 within the definition of her qualifying child for that 21 year . 22 That being so, she does not qualify as a 23 head of household, see § 2(b)(1)(A)(i), and she does 24 not qualify for an earned income credit as an eligible 25 individual with a qualifying child . See Section s Heritage Reporting Corporation (20;2) 628-4888 1 32 (c) (1) (A) (i) and 32 (c) (3) (A) . We note, an d 2 Respondent acknowledges, that for purposes of th e 3 earned income credit,iPetitioner otherwise fits the 4 definition of an eligible individual without a 5 qualifying child, see i§ 32(c) (1) (A) (ii) , but her 6 income for 2006 effectively denies her any earned 7 income credit for that, year . 8 At the beginning of trial, Respondent made 9 an oral motion to increase the deficiency, which oral 10 motion could also be construed to be an oral motion to 11 conform the pleadings to the proof . See § 6214(a) ; 12 Rule 41(b) . Either way, Respondent's oral motion 13 embodies Respondent's attempt to comply with th e 14 mandates of § 6214(a),'which establishes the Court's 15 jurisdiction to increase a deficiency determined in a 16 notice of deficiency if "claim therefor is asserted 17 [by Respondent] at or before the hearing o r 18 rehearing . " 19 To the extent not otherwise agreed upo n 20 between the parties, Respondent's request should have 21 come in the form of his answer or in a request fo r 22 leave to file an amendment to the answer in which the 23 issues giving rise to the increased deficiency could 24 have been plead . Under the circumstances, and absent 25 any such agreement, such a request would have bee n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 denied if made at trial . It appears however that a 2 part of Respondent's oral motion relates to an 3 increase to the deficiency arising from Petitioner's 4 acknowledge that the alimony income attributed to her 5 in the notice of deficiency has been understated . 6 One of Petitioner's own exhibits show s 7 alimony income in excess of the amount shown in the 8 notice of deficiency . Consequently, so much o f 9 Respondent's oral motion as construed to conform the 10 pleadings to proof is granted . However, Respondent 11 need not actually amend his answer to make that claim . 12 The increased deficiency can be shown in a Rule 15 5 13 computation . 14 So much of Respondent's oral motion however 15 as relates to any increase in deficiency arising from 16 any computational error made in the notice o f 17 deficiency is denied . 'That being so, Respondent' s 18 Exhibit 10-R, although retained by the Court, will not 19 be received into evidence . To reflect the .foregoing, 20 an appropriate order will be issued, and decision will 21 be entered under Rule 155 . This concludes the Court's 22 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case . 23 (Whereupon, at 9 :55 a .m ., the bench opinion 24 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888