TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Shawn Timothy Cermak
Docket Number: 23932-18
Judge: Morrison
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/15/2019
Pages: 6

SHAWN TIMOTHY CERMAK, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 PA Docket No. 23932-18. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ORDER OF SERVICE OF TRANSCRIPT 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 respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript in the above case before Richard T. Morrison, at St. Paul, Minnesota, on September 12, 2019, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Richard T. Morrison Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 15, 2019 SERVED Oct 15 2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bench Opinion by Judge Richard T. Morrison SePtember 12, 2019 Shawn Timothy Cermak v. Commissioner Docket No. 23932-18 THE COURT: THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ÔRAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND 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 OT BE RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. 10 All references to sections are to the Internal 11 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, unless otherwise noted. 12 All references to Rules are to the Tax Court Rules of 13 Practice and Procedure. 14 This Bench Opinion is made pursuant to the 15 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 16 17 18 The respondent, who we refer to as the IRS, determined a deficiency of $3,085 in petitioner Mr. Sha n Timothy Cermak's federal income tax for 2017 tax year. 19 The deficiency results from the IRS's determination thah 20 the two dependents claimed by Mr. Cermak on his 2017 tak 21 22 return were not his qualifying children in 2017 and tha therefore: (1) Mr. Cermak is not entitled to dependency- 23 exemption deductions for the minor children, (2) Mr. 24 Cermak is not entitled to a child tax credit for the minor 25 children, and (3) Mr. Cermak is not entitled to head-of- (973)406-2250loperationseescribers.net{www.escribers.net household filing status. 4 The stipulation of facts is incorporated herein. Mr. Cermak was a resident of Minnesota when he filed his petition. Mr. Cermak is the father of two minor children, MD, a son born in 2013, and CC, a daughter born in 2015;. Some time before September 2016, Mr. Cermak resided with his children MD and CC, CC's mother (Ms. Amy King), and Ms. King's son, DK, in Chanhassen, Minnesotal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 In September 2016, Mr. Cermak was convicted of 11 malicious punishment of a child, and domestic assault, 5s 12 13 14 15 to DK. A domestic abuse-no contact order was issued against Mr. Cermak as to DK. Mr. Cermak was forced to | vacate the Chanhassen residence due to the terms of thel domestic abuse-no contact order, which remained in effe¢t 16 throughout the entire 2017 tax year. When he vacated the 17 Chanhassen residence in September 2016, Mr. Cermak took 18 with him MD, who remained in his care until January 2017. 19 Ms. King, CC, and DK remained at the Chanhassen residence. 20 On December 21, 2016, Mr. Cermak signed a 1 21 Release of Liability, advising the property manager that 22 he vacated the Chanhassen residence in September of 2016. 23 Throughout the entire 2017 tax year, CC resided 24 with Ms. King at the Chanhassen residence. 25 In January 2017, MD stopped living with Mr. 973)406-2250|operations@escribers.net|www.escribersnet Cermak and began living with his maternal grandmother. 5 At trial, Mr. Cermak did not dispute that MD did not reside with him at any time during the 2017 tax year after the date in January when MD began living with his 1 2 3 4 5 maternal grandmother. Mr. Cermak did not dispute that CC 6 7 8 9 10 11 did not reside with him at any time during the 2017 tax year. In 2018, Mr. Cermak filed a 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for his 2017 tax year, claiming MD and CC as his dependents. Generally, the IRS's determinations are presumed 12 correct and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that 13 those determinations are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. 14 Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Under section 15 16 17 18 7491(a)(1) the burden of proof may shift from the taxpayer to the IRS if the taxpayer produces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the taxpayer's liability. The findings of fact in this Bench 19 Opinion are based on the preponderance of the evidence; 20 21 22 23 therefore it is unnecessary to determine who bears the burden of proof. Martin Ice Cream v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 189, 210 (1998). Section 151(a) provides for a deduction for 24 certain exemption amounts. Section 151(c) allows an 25 exemption for "each individual who is a dependent (as 73)406-2250|operationsøescribers.netlwww.escribers.net . defined in section 152)". Section 152(a) provides that a 6 "dependent" includes "a qualifying child" (as defined in section 152(c)), and Mr. Cermak contends that in 2017 his 1 2 3 4 minor children were "qualifying childe " for purposes 5 6 7 8 9 of his tax liability. However, in order to be a "qualifying child," the child must meet several tests set out in section 152(c)(1). The test that is critical here -- and that Mr. Cermak fails to satisfy -- is in section 152(c) (1) (B): A 10 qualifying child must have "the same principal place of 11 12 abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of such taxable year." Because Mr. Cermak's children did not live 13 with him more than half of 2017, they and he did not have 14 15 16 17 the same principal place of abode for more than half of the year 2017. See Phillips v. Commissioner, T.C. Memq3 A 2011-199. Therefore, we hold that Mr. Cermak is not 18 entitled to dependency exemptions for his two children 19 because they are not his "qualifying childhen". That also 20 21 resolves Mr. Cermak's filing status and child credit claims for the 2017 tax year. To qualify as "head of 22 household," a taxpayer must "maintain as his home a 23 household which constitutes for more than one-half of such 24 taxable year the principal place of abode [of] *** a 25 qualifying child." Sec. 2(b)(1)(A). Likewise, the child 73)406-2250|operationseescribersnet|www.escobers.net tax credit is allowed "with respect to each qualifying child." Sec. 24(a). Since Mr. Cermak had no qualifying 7 children in tax year 2017, he is not entitled to dependency exemption deductions for them, child tax credits for them, or head-of-household filing status. Given our holdings, a decision will be entered for the respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (973)406-2250 ! operétionseescribersnet|wwwasaibersmet .