TAX COURT OPINION

Case: John Anthony Van Houten
Docket Number: 3598-08
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/05/2010
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TAX COUR T . WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 JOHN ANTHONY VAN HOUTEN, Petitione r v . ) Docket No . 3598-08 . 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 trial of the-above case before Judge James S . Halpern at Tampa, Florida on December 16, 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 . Dated : Washington, D .C . January 5, 2010 (Signed) James S. Halpern Judge SERVED JAN - 7 2010 ! J v ORIGINA L Case name : Van Houten Docket No . 3598-0 8 BENCH .OPINION The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact an d opinion in this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case . This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in .effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . By notice of deficiency dated November 13, 2007, respondent determined a deficiency of $4,440 in petitioners' Federal income tax for 2005 . The parties have stipulated certain facts . The stipulation of facts, .with attached exhibits, is incorporated herein by this reference . Petitioner" bear he burden of proof . Rule 142(a) . A The issue in this case are as follows . (1) Whether --r- S petitioner is entitled to dependency exemptions for his 3 children, J, T, and C, for 2005 . Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to claim J as a dependent for 2005 . (2) Whether petitioner is entitled to a child tax credit of $1,596 for 2005 . Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to claim a child . tax credit for J for 2005 . (3) Whether petitione r is entitled to an additional child tax credit in the am unt of $1,404 for 2005 . All of the issues turn on whether ~eifit%nr! nitelled i:fll to dependency exemptions for T and C . Section 151 allows a deduction for dependency exemptions, including additional exemptions for dependents . Section 152 defines dependents . Section 152(e) provides a special rule for divorced parents . As applicable to this case , section 152(e ) provides that petitioner is the parent who is entitled t o dependency exemptions for T and C only if he is the custodial parent with respect to them . Section 152(e)(4) provides that the custodial parent is the parent who has custody for the greater portion of the taxable year . Petitioner has failed to show that, with respect to T and C, he is the custodial parent . He is therefore not entitled to additional exemptions for T and C . Nor is he entitled to a child tax credit for T and C or any additional child tax credit . See sec . 24 . Petitioner argues that any tax debt for 2005 was discharged in bankruptcy . We agree with respondent that a bankruptcy discharge does not discharge a debt owed for a priority tax described in section 507(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code . See sec . 2 R 523(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code . Petitioner has failed to prove that his 2005 tax debt was discharged in bankruptcy . This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case . Decision will be entered under Rule 155 . 3