TAX COURT OPINION

Case: William A. Sommer, II
Docket Number: 8866-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/12/2009
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 WILLIAM . A . SOMMER, II, Petitioner v . ) Docket No . 8866-08S . 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 trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Tampa, Florida, on February 25, 2009, containing his oral findings of .fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judg e Dated :. Washington, D .C . March 12, 2009 SERVED Mar 16 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke Feb . 25, 200 9 2 Sommer v . Commissioner Docket No . : 8866-08S 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 4 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the followin g 5 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 6 The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied 7 upon as precedent in any other case . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 This case was heard pursuant to the provisions o f section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when th e petition was filed . Pursuant to section 7463(b) th e decision to be entered is not reviewable by another othe r court and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent fo r any other case . Unless otherwise indicated, subsequen t section references are to the Internal Revenue Code i n effect for the years in issue and all rule references are t o the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Initially w e note that the Commissioner's determinations in a notice o f deficiency are presumed correct and the taxpayer bears th e burden to prove that the determinations are in error . Se e Rule 142(a) . The burden of proof on factual issues that effec t the taxpayer's tax liability may be shifted to th e Commissioner where the taxpayer introduces credible evidenc e in respect to such issues . See section 7491(a)(1) . Th e Petitioner has not made an allegation in this case tha t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l section 7491(a) applies, however, the Court need not decide 2 whether the burden shifted to Respondent pursuant to section 3 7491(a) because the Court's analysis is based on the record 4 before it and not on who bears the burden of proof in thi s 4 .5 case . 6' This case arises from a deficiency determination 7 by Respondent for the taxable year 2006 . Responden t 8 determined a deficiency in the amount of $3,650 .00 . 9 This deficiency is based upon Respondent' s 10 determination that the Petitioner is not entitled to claim 11 two dependency exemptions which were reflected on his 2006 12 Federal Income Tax return . 13 The two dependency exemptions Petitioner claimed 14 were children of he and his former spouse . Pursuant to a 15 marital settlement agreement and a final judgment o f 16 . dissolution of marriage between Petitioner and his forme r 17 spous e 1 8 19 --he custodial parent of Petitioner's two children 20 is his former spouse . Petitioner operated in prior years 21 under the assumption and the agreement in the marita l 22 settlement agreement he entered into with his former spouse 23 that he would be entitled to the dependency exemptions . 24 Unbeknownst to Petitioner, for the year 2006 his forme r 25 spouse claimed the dependency exemptions . She did, however, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 inform Petitioner that she would-not file a consent to allow 2 the Petitioner to claim the dependency exemptions for 2006 . 3 Internal Revenue Code section 151 permits a n 4 individual to deduct the exemption amount for dependents 5 when calculating taxable income . A dependent is a 6 qualifying child or a qualifying relative . Section 152(a) . 7 The two children in question in this case would 8 meet the qualifications set forth in section 152(c) . 9 However, Respondent urges the Court to sustain th e 10 disallowance of the dependency exemptions in dispute since 11 the Petitioner was not the custodial parent of the tw o 12 children and he did not attach form 8332 or its equivalent 13 to his Form 1040-as required by section 152(e)(2) an d 14 section 1 .152-4T(a), Q&-A-3, Temporary Income Tax Regs ., 49 15 F .2d Reg 34459 (August 31, 1984) . 16 In pertinent part, section 151(c) allows a 17 taxpayer to claim as a deduction the exemption amount for 18 each dependent who is the taxpayer's child and satisfies 19 certain age requirements and gross income requirements . 2 .0 The only issue in this case that would bar the 21 Petitioner from claiming the dependents in question hinges 22 on the application of section 152(a) and (e), which limits 23 dependency exemption deductions in the case of divorced or 24 otherwise separated parents . In pertinent part, section 25 152(e)(1) sets forth the following general rule : If th e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 child received over half of his/her support during th e 2 calendar year from his/her divorced parents and the child is 3 in the care of one or both-parents .for more than one half of 4 a calendar year, then the child is treated as receiving over 5 half of his/her support during the calendar-year from th e 6 parent having custody for the greater portion of th e 7 calendar year . This parent is defined as the custodial 8 parent . In the present case there is no dispute tha t 9 Petitioner's ex-spouse . was the custodial parent . 10 Section 152(e)(2) provides an exception to th e 11 general rule of section 152(e)(1) . If the custodial parents 12 signs a written declaration that he will not claim the child 13 as a dependent and the non-custodial parent attaches th e 14 written declaration to his return for the taxable year . In 15 that circumstance the non-custodial parent is entitled to 16 the dependency exemption deduction . Section 152(e)(2 ) 17 clearly requires the non-custodial parent must attach a 18 release from the custodial parent to the non-custodia l 19 parent's Federal Income Tax return for the year in question . 20 See Miller v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 184, 195 (2000) . The 21 written declaration may be made on a form provided by the 22 I .R .S . or a document that conforms to its substance . The 23 written declaration is embodied in Form 8332 whic h 24 incorporates. the requirements of section 152(e)(2) . 25 In the OlLpresent case the Petitioner did no t Heritage Reporting Corporation v (202) 628-4888 7 1 attach such form to his return and he testified at trial 2 that his former spouse would not sign such form . Despit e 3 the fact that Petitioner operated under the assumption that 4 his spouse would honor,a prior agreement they had whic h 5 would allow him to take the dependency exemption-Petitione r 6 has not establish d that he meets the requirements of 7 section 152(e ) ~, and is not entitled to the dependency <J 8 exemptions in question . Therefore, the Court is left wit h 9 no recourse but to enter a decision for the Respondent . 10 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 11 and opinion in this case . 12 (Whereupon, at 2 :55 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 13 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 14 // 15 // 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 / / 22 23 // 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888