TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Shawn Timothy Cermak
Docket Number: 10388-19
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/02/2020
Pages: 5

RS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SHAWN TIMOTHY CERMAK, Petitioner(s), v. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 10388-19. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) 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 Joseph Robert Goeke containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the remote St. Paul, Minnesota trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered under Rule 155. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 2, 2020 SERVED Oct 05 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke September 22, 2020 Shawn Timothy Cermak v. Commissioner Docket No. 10388-19 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral 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 not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This 10 OPinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 of the Tax Court 11 Rules of Practice and Procedure, and section 7459(b) of 12 the Internal Revenue Code. Section references here and 13 after are to the Internal Revenue Code as applicable to-½¢axA befo< 4 14 us, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of 15 Practice and Procedure. 16 Our jurisdiction over the present case is 17 Provided by section 6213(a), because this is a case 18 Petitioned after the receipt of a Notice of Deficiency. 19 The parties have stipulated facts and the Petitioner 20 testified. He timely filed the petition in this case as a 21 22 resident of Minnesota. For 2016 the Petitioner received a Notice of 23 Deficiency from the Internal Revenue Service. This notice 24 25 adjusted the Form 1040 he filed for that year. He showed on that return single filing status. He claimed two Cribers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dependency exemptions for minor children on that return. After the parties' work on the case, one of those two dependency exemptions, which was disallowed in the Notice of Deficiency remains in dispute, and is the sole issue remaining for discussion in this opinion. There are credit issues which are associated with the disallowance of this dependency exemption, but they are derivative of the determination of the allowance of the dependency exemption itself. The parties have 10 stipulated that the Petitioner is the father of the child 11 whose dependency exemption is at issue. The child's 12 mother and the Petitioner never married. The child was 13 born in 2015. The child's mother filed her own separate 14 15 Form 1040 Income Tax Return for 2016, claiming head of household filing status, and also showing the child as a 16 dependent. The child's mother and the child lived 17 together throughout 2016. The Petitioner lived with them 18 until September 18th, 2016 when he moved out of the 19 residence efAlocal law enforcement authorities. p 20 Throughout the remainder of this opinion the dependency 21 22 23 exemption in question and the associated child will simply be referred to as "the child". The stipulated facts in this case ultimately 24 dictate the result. Section 151(c) provides for 25 exemptions or dependents as defined in section 152. Cribers 10that‰2:Motormwahrmmestr&sruwtlwwwmtribers.net 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Section 152(a) defines "dependent" to include a qualified child and subsection (c) defines "qualifying child". The child whose exemption is at issue in this case is a qualified child. However, section 152(c)(4) (JB) states as follows and provides the determinative language in this case. "More than one parent claiming a qualifying child, if the parents claiming any qualifying child do not file a joint return together, such child shall be treated as the qualifying child of (i) the parent with whom the child has resided for the longest period time during the taxable year, or (ii) if the child resides with both parents for the same amount of time during such taxable year, the 13 parent with the highest adjusted gross income." 14 15 There is no exception in this statutory rule for one of the parents leaving the abode because of the 16 direction of local law enforcement authorities or for any 17 other specific reason. The statute simply provides that 18 the child as a dependent should be allowed to the parent 19 with whom the child spent the longest amount of time. In 20 this situation it is clear, based upon the Stipulation of 21 22 Facts and the Petitioner's own testimony, that the child lived with its mother throughout the year, and that 23 Petitioner did not live with the child after September 18 24 of the taxable year. 25 The Petitioner claimed childcare tax credit and the earned income credit based upon having two dependency exemptions. Therefore, these amounts are also in dispute, but they are derivative of the decision we reach relative to the claimed dependency exemption for the child. Based upon the simple application of the Internal Revenue Code to this case, the Petitioner is not entitled for the child as a dependency exemption, and therefore, the credits have to be recomputed as reflected in Respondent's Pre-Trial Memorandum. Therefore, a Rule 155 computation will be necessary. This concludes the Court's Oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 1:01 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