TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Eddie Toe Kayakpah
Docket Number: 24359-15
Judge: Morrison
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/08/2016
Pages: 5

SYM UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 EDDIE TOE KAYAKPAH, Petitioner v. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 24359-15. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ORDER OF SERVICE OF TRANSCRIPT Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice of Procedure, there is transmitted herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Judge Richard T. Morrison, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 30, 2016, 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, an appropriate order and decision will be entered. (Signed) Richard T. Morrison Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 8, 2016 SERVED Nov 14 2016 Capital Reporting Company 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Richard T. Morrison September 30, 2016 Eddie Toe Kayakpah v. Commissioner Docket No. 24359-15 THE COURT: THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE (A BENCH OPINION). THE FOLLOWING IS THE BENCH OPINION. References to sections are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. References to Rules are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made under the authority of section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Eddie Toe Kayakpah resided in Pennsylvania stYtests when he filed his petition. His petition dhs-i-e-t-s-eff* T a otice of eficiency issued by Respondent, the IRS, determining a deficiency in tax of $3,328 for the tax year 2013. The Court need not resolve which party bears the burden of proof because all $Àq findings in this opinion are supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Kayakpah claimed a dependency exemption deductio ( with respect to his daughter, whose initials are J.K. A dependent is defined as either a qualifying child or a qualifying relative. Sec. 152(a). Section 152(c)(4)(B) provides that if the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 parents claiming any qualifying child do not file a joint return together, such child is treated as the qualifying child of the parent with whom the child resided for the longest period of time during the taxable year or, if the child resides with both parents for the same amount of time during such year, the parent with the highest adjusted gross income. The IRS's sole argument why Kayakpah's daughter is not his qualifying child is that under section 152(c) (4) (B), he was not the parent with .19me. RTN vJho she resided for the longest period of time during 2013 or alternatively, if she resided with both parents for the same amount of time during 2013, the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 mother's adjusted gross income was higher than 15 16 17 18 Kayakpah's during 2013. Kayakpah and his daughter's mother moved in together in April 2009. They had a son in 2009 and the daughter in 2010. In May 2012 they separated. 19 When they separated, they verbally agreed that the 20 21 22 23 24 25 children would stay with Kayakpah three nights of each week and with their mother four nights of each week. In practice, this arrangement was not faithfully followed during 2013. Kayakpah credibly testified that during the first four months of 2013, the mother was busy with nursing school and as a 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 result, the children stayed with him 70-75 percent of the nights. He also credibly testified that during the last eight months of 2013, the children often stayed with him past Sunday, which was the day that the parents had agreed that custody would be transferred from Kayakpah to the mother for the week. Thus, during the last eight months, the daughter stayed with Kayakpah more than ha, 3/7th of R1M4 the nights. For these last eight months, we find that she stayed with him at least 50 percent of the nights. Thus, the proportion of the nights in 2013 that the daughter stayed with Kayakpah is at least equal to .(1/3 of the year) (70%) + (2/3 of the year)(50%), which is 17/30t of all the nights of RT the year, or 57 percent of the nights. We therefore conclude that the daughter was a qualifying child of Kayakpah for 2013. In addition to denying a dependency exemption deduction for the daughter, the IRS also made adjustments to the earned income credit, the additional child tax credit, and filing status. Each of these adjustments was defended by the IRS at trial solely on the failure of the daughter to meet the statutory test of section 152(c)(4) (B). Therefore, none of these adjustments are sustained. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company The Court will later enter an order requiring the parties to file with the Court proposed computations in accordance with this bench opinion under Rule 155. 6 This concludes this bench opinion. (Whereupon, at 12:38 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 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com