TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Sylvio Desameau
Docket Number: 13344-16
Judge: Lauber
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/28/2017
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SYLVIO DESAMEAU, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent SD ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 13344-16. ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is 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 Albert G. Lauber at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 26, 2017, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent with respect to the deficiency and for petitioner with respect to the accuracy-related penalty. (Signed) Albert G. Lauber Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 28, 2017 SERVED Nov 30 2017 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Albert G. Lauber September 26, 2017 Sylvio Desameau v. Commissioner Docket No. 13344-16 THE CÓURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is rendered pursuant to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and Rule 152 11 of the Tax Court Rules. All statutory references are to 12. the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the tax year at 13 issue, and all rule references are to the Tax Court Rules 14 of Practice and Procedure. We round all monetary amounts 15 16 to the nearest dollar. Some of the facts have been stipulated. The 17 stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are 18 19 incorporated by this reference. This case involves Petitioner's 2014 taxable 20 year. By a timely statutory notice of deficiency dated 21 May 16th, 2016, the IRS determined a deficiency of $5,962 22 and an accuracy-related penalty of $1,192 under section 23 6662(a). The IRS subsequently conceded the penalty. 24 25 Thus, only the deficiency remains in issue. At the time the petition in this case was filed, Petitioner resided in MEEl (973)406-2250]operationseescribers.net|www.escribers.net 4 Pennsylvania. The question for decision is whether Petitioner for 2014 is entitled to dependency exemption deductions for three minor children, S.D., I.D., and Z.D. (We refer to minor children by their initials.) Petitioner's ability to claim dependency exemption deductions in turn determines whether he is entitled to child tax credits for these three children. Petitioner and his ex-wife, Tamika Stewart, were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 divorced some time prior to 2014. On August 2, 2012, the 11 Delaware County Court of Common Pleas ordered Petitioner 12 13 to pay support to Tamika. During the hearing concerning that support order, the Court stated: "I am going to give 14 Sylvio Desameau the children as an exemption." Sylvio 15 16 17 Desameau is the Petitioner in this case. Tamika Stewart was the custodial parent of S.D., I.D., and Z.D. during 2014 because those children resided 18 with her for more than half the year. Each child was 19 under the age of 17 as of December 31, 2014. On her 20 Federal income tax return for 2014, Tamika claimed all 21 22 23 three of these children as her dependents. Petitioner timely filed a Federal income tax return for 2014. On this return·he claimed dependency 24 exemptions for four children, S.D., I.D., Z.D., and L.D. 25 On examination of that return the IRS allowed the (973)406-2250loperations@escribers.net|www.escribers.net 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 dependency exemption for L.D. because no one else had claimed that child as a dependent. The IRS also allowed a child tax credit for L.D. and recognized Petitioner's filing status as head of household. However, the IRS disallowed the claimed dependency exemptions and child tax credits Petitioner had claimed for S.D., I.D., and Z.D. because document-matching revealed that Tamika Stewart had also claimed those three children as her dependents and had claimed child tax credits for them. The IRS determinations a notice of deficiency are generally presumed correct and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving them erroneous. Tax Court Rule 142(a). 13 Petitioner does not contend, and could not plausibly 14 15 contend, that the burden of proof should shift to the IRS under section 7491. Petitioner thus bears the burden of 16 proof on all factual issues. 17 18 19 Section 151(c) allows a taxpayer to claim an exemption for each "dependent" as defined in section 152. To be a "dependent", a person must be either a "qualifying 20 child" or a "qualifying relative". 21 In order to be a "qualifying child", the child 22 must have the same principal place of abode as the 23 taxpayer for more than half the year. Because S.D., I.D., 24 and Z.D. resided with Tamika during most of 2014, they 25 were not "qualifying children" of Petitioner. BERIE (973)406-2250| operations©escribers.net i vmw.escribers.net Section 152(d) provides that a minor child can 6 still be a "qualifying relative" of a taxpayer if certain support and other requirements are met. One of these requirements·is that the child must not be a qualifying child of any other taxpayer for the year at issue. Since S.D., I.D., and Z.D. were "qualifying children" of Tamika during 2014, they cannot be "qualifying relatives" of Petitioner. Section 152(e)(1) provides a special rule for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 divorced parents whereby a noncustodial parent like 11 Petitioner may nevertheless be entitled to claim 12 13 dependency exemption deductions for minor children in circumstances such as these. As relevant here, the key 14 requirements are that the custodial parent must sign a 15 written declaration that she will not claim the child -as a 16 dependent, and the noncustodial parent must attach that 17 declaration to his tax return for the year in question. 18 19 Form 8332 is the IRS form that is normally used as the written declaration. Although taxpayers are not 20 required to use Form 8332 for this purpose, any other 21 written declaration executed by the custodial parent must 22 conform to the substance of Form 833. Miller v. 23 Commissioner, 114 T.C. 184, 189 (2000), aff'd, 293 F.3d 24 1208 (10th Cir. 2002). Section 152(e) allows a 25 noncustodial parent to claim a dependency deduction only BElllEl (973)406-2250loperationseescribers.net|www.escnbers.net O ' O when that parent attaches Form 8332 or its equivalent to his Federal income tax return for the year for which he claims the deduction. Cappel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 7 2016-150 (2016). In this case, Petitioner is the noncustodial parent of S.D., I.D., and Z.D. Tamika Stewart did not execute a Form 8332 or an equivalent declaration waiving her right to claim those three children as her dependents. Indeed, she in fact claimed all three children as her dependents. Petitioner did not attach to his 2014 return a orm 8332 or equivalent declaration executed by Tamika. Instead, he relies on a transcript of the August 2012 hearing in which the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas appears to have granted Petitioner the right to claim dependency exemption deductions for the children. A copy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 of this hearing transcript is included in the stipulation 18 of facts. 19 We have previously held that a judicial order 20 directing which spouse is entitled to claim dependency 21 22 exemption deductions for minor children is not equivalent to a Form 8332 declaration because (among other things) it 23 is not signed by the custodial spouse. Miller v. 24 Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 191-196. The hearing transcript 25 referred to above was not attached to Petitioner's 2014 MEE (973)406-2250loperations®escribersmetlvrww.escribersnet 8 tax return, and it is not signed by Tamika. It therefore does not meet the requirements for a spousal declaration as set forth in section 152(e)(2). Section 152 thus precludes Petitioner from claiming dependency exemption deductions for S.D., I.D., or Z.D. for the taxable year 2014. . Section 24 allows a tax credit for each "qualifying child". Under section 24(c), a "qualifying child" is a child less than 17 years old for whom the taxpayer is allowed a dependency exemption deduction under section 151. Because Petitioner is not entitled to a dependency exemption deduction under section 151 for S.D., I.D., or Z.D., he is not allowed a child tax credit for any of those three children. To implement the foregoing, a decision will be entered for Respondent with respect to the deficiency and for Petitioner with respect to the accuracy-related 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 penalty. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. . (Whereupon, at 2:01 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEEllH (973)406-2250| operations@escribersaiet I www.escribersnet