TAX COURT OPINION

Case: John B. Anderson
Docket Number: 847-06S
Judge: Cohen
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 10/18/2006
Pages: 5

T .C . Summary Opinion 2006-168 v Sill . S.L. ] UNITED STATES TAX COUR T JOHN B . ANDERSON, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No .ii 847-06S . Filed October 18, 2006 . COHEN, Ju e : This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of ection 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time thl petition was filed . The decision to be entered is not review le by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority . Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue . SERVED OCT 1 8 2006 - 2 - Respondent etermined a deficiency of $1,363 in petitioner's Federal income t x for 2003 . The issues for decision are whethe r petitioner is en itled to claim a dependency exemption deductio n for his daughter and whether petitioner is entitled to a chil d tax credit . Background Petitioner esided in Huntington , West Virginia, at the time he filed his pe ition . Petitioner jis the unmarried father of J .W . In compliance with a Novembe r 5, 1997, child support order issued by th e Circuit Court Cabell County , West Virginia , petitioner paid nearly 90 perce of the total determined support obligation fo r J .W . in 2003, a d he maintained health insurance on J .W .' s behalf . J .W .' s mother is the custodial parent of J .W . Petitioner claimed a deduction for a dependency exemption and a child tax credit for J .W . on his 2003 tax return . Respondent dis a lowed the dependency exemption and the child ta x credit , explai g in the notice of deficiency that "whoever ha s been appointed custodial parent by the court system is entitle d to the depende exemption unless he or she expressly waives th e right to claim the exemption ." The notice also explained that , because the child tax credit can be claimed only by a taxpaye r who is eligibl to claim the dependency exemption deduction, th e child tax credit petitioner claimed for.2003 was also disallowed . Discussion The Inter al Revenue Code allows as a deduction an exemption for each depen ent of a taxpayer in computing taxable income . Sec . 151(c) . child of a taxpayer is generally a qualifie d dependent only if the taxpayer provides over half of . the child's support during the taxable year . Sec . 152(a )( 1) . However , section 152(e) 1) limits the dependency exemption where the child ' s parent live apart , as follows : SEC .I152 ( e) . Support Test in Case of Child of Divorced Parents , Etc .-- as o (1) Custodial parent gets exemption .-- Except herwise provided in this subsection, if-- (A) a child ( as defined in section 151(c )( 3)) receives over half of his support during the calendar year from his parents-- W who are divorced or legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance , (ii) who are separated under a written separation agreement, o r (iii) who live apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calendar year, and (B) such child is in the custody of one r both of his parents for more than one-half f the calendar year , hild shall be treated , for purposes of such subse tion ( a), as receiving over half of his suppo t during the calendar year from the paren t havin custody for a greater portion of the calen Jar year ( hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the "custodial parent") . - 4 - While section 15~2 ( e) provides for certain exceptions to thi s rule , none of t] ose exceptions applies to this . case . Petitione r provided more than half of J .W .' s support in 2003 . However, petitioner is not J .W .' s custodial parent, and J .W . did not li, e with him for more than half of 2003 . Thus, section 152(e)(', ) denies petitioner a dependency exemption deduction for J W . in 2003 . Petitioner argues that section 152 ( e)(1) applies only where a child's paren s were at one time married . In support of his argument, petit oner cites inconsistent positions taken by th e Internal Revenu Service ( IRS) at various times . See King v . Commissioner , 1 1 T .C . 245, 249 n .6 (2003 ) . Apparently , respondent allo ed petitioner , as the noncustodial parent, to claim J .W . as h s dependent at least once in previous years . Upon revie of petitioner ' s tax return for 2003, however , respondent disa lowed the claimed dependency exemption deduction and the related child tax credit for J .W . In a letter date d June 29, 2006, n IRS Appeals officer notified petitioner that this Court rece ntly had held , on similar facts , that "the legislative hi tory of section 152(e ) does not provide support for deviating rom the plain meaning of the statute that th e special suppor test can apply to parents who have never marrie d each other ." Jing v . Commissioner , supra at 251 . In any event , the Commissioner is not bound for any given tax year to allow a - 5 - deduction erro eously permitted for a prior year . See, e .g ., Lerch v . Commi sioner , 877 F .2d 624, 627 n .6 ( 7th Cir . 1989), affg . T .C . Mem . 1987-295 ; Pekar v . Commissioner , 113 T . C . 158 , 166 (1999 ) Although etitioner provided over 50 percent of J .W .'s support in 200 , he is not J . W .'s custodial parent, and no exception unde section 152(e ) applies to allow petitioner to claim a depende cy exemption deduction for J .W . Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to a section 151 deduction for a dependency exemption for 2003 . Section 20 a) allows taxpayers a credit against tax impose d for each qualifying child . Section 24 ( c)(1)(A) provides that a "qualifying chi d" for purposes of section 24 is "any individual if * * * the to payer is allowed a deduction under section 15 1 with respect t o such individual for the taxable year" . Becaus e petitioner is n entitled to a dependency exemption deduction under section 15 he is not entitled to a child tax credit unde r section 24 . III To reflect he foregoing, Decision will be entere d for respondent .