TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Thomas Larry Howell
Docket Number: 5604-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/30/2008
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT Washington, D .C . 2021 7 THOMAS LARRY HOWELL, Petitioner, v . Docket No . 5604-07S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . O R D E R i . RECORD= S1RVI C W F-7 OTATZI LAj a Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at St . Louis, Missouri, on May 22, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be issued . (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 30, 2008 SERVED JUL - 3 2008 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 2 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzz o May 22, 200 8 Howell v . Commissioner Docket No . 5604-07 S THE COURT : The Court has decided to rende r oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d the following represents the Court's oral findings o f fact and opinion . The oral findings of fact an d opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in an y other case . This proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency is a Small Tax Case subject to th e provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 o f the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Interna l Revenue Code of 1986, as amended , and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Subsequent section references contained i n this bench opinion are to the sections of the Interna l Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for 2005 . Thomas Larry Howell appeared pro se . Catherine S . Tyson appeared on behalf of respondent . In a notice of deficiency dated December 8 , 2006, respondent determined a $3,845 deficiency i n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 . 3 1 petitioner's 2005 Federal income tax . The issues for 2 decision are : (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to 3 a dependency exemption deduction for his son ; (2 ) 4 whether petitioner qualifies as a head of household ; 5' (3) whether petitioner is entitled to a child ta x 6 credit (including an additional child tax credit) ; and 7 (4) whether petitioner is entitled to an earned income 8 credit . 9 Some of the facts have been stipulated and 10 are so found . At the time the petition was filed, 11 petitioner resided in Missouri . 12 Petitioner was employed as a laborer for a 13 nursery during 2005 . He lived in a two-bedroom rented 14 apartment during that year . He is the father of a 15 son, but he is not and has never been married to his 16 son's mother . In fact, he has never been married . 17 Pursuant to a Judgment and Order o f 18 Paternity, Custody, Visitation and Child Support , 19 dated November 16, 2001, issued by the Circuit Court 20 of St . Francis County, Missouri, at Farmington , 21 Missouri, (the judgment), it was determined that "it 22 is in the best interest [ of petitioner's son] that 23 [petitioner and the mother of his son] be grante d 24 joint legal and physical custody ." The judgment also 25 obligates petitioner to pay child support payments to Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 the mother of his son . With minor exceptions due to 2 timing, petitioner has consistently fulfilled hi s 3 support obligation over the years . 4 The judgment and the parenting plan attached 5 to the judgment make it clear that the petitioner and 6 the mother of petitioner's son intended to shar e 7 physical custody of petitioner's son as equally a s 8 possible . They even agreed to alternate the years for 9 which each could claim a dependency exemptio n 10 deduction for the child, with petitioner bein g 11 entitled to do so for the odd-numbered years . Each 12 agreed to prcvide the other with the relevan t 13 necessary waiver, see sec . 152(e), but apparently the 14 mother of petitioner's son refused to sign one fo r 15 2005 . 16 Petitioner.'s timely-filed 2005 return shows 17 his adjusted gross income to be $17,770 for that year . 18 On that return, he claimed a dependency exemption for 19 his son . Petitioner's filing status is show as a head 20 of household on his 2005 return, and the taxabl e 21 income reported on that return takes into account the 22 standard deduction attributable to that filing status . 23 The child tax credit (and additional child ta x 24 credit), as well as the earned income credit claimed 25 on petitioner's return are computed as though his son Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 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 5 is petitioner's qualifying child for purposes of thos e credits . In the notice of deficiency that forms th e basis for this case, respondent : (1) disallowed th e dependency exemption deduction claimed on petitioner' s return ; (2) changed petitioner's filing status from head of household to single, adjusted the standar d deduction accordingly, and applied the income tax rat e attributable to that filing status ; (3) disallowed th e child tax credit (including the additional child ta x credit) ; and (4) disallowed the earned income credit . We turn our attention first to petitioner' s entitlement to a dependency exemption deduction fo r his son . In general, a taxpayer is entitled to a n additional exemption deduction for each individual wh o is a dependent of the taxpayer for the taxable year . Sec . 151(a), (c) . Ignoring exceptions not relevan t here, the term "dependent" as used in section 151 an d elsewhere in the Internal Revenue Code, means a qualifying child or a qualifying relative . Sec . 152(a) . Subject to special rules not relevant here , the term "qualifying child" means, among othe r relationships, a child of the taxpayer who (1) has th e same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for mor e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 than one-half of the year ; (2) meets certain ag e 2 requirements ; and (3) has not provided over one-half 3 of his or her own support for the taxable year . Sec . 4 152(c) . 5 The second and third requirement state d 6 above are not in dispute in this case . The disput e 7 between the parties focuses on the first element, that 8 is, whether petitioner and his son had the sam e 9 principal place of abode for more than one-half o f 10 2005 . Respondent suggests that they did not, pointing 11 to the language in the judgment that provides that the 12 residence of petitioner's son's mother shall b e 13 considered the primary residence of petitioner's son 14 for school purposes . 15 As we view the matter, the judgment and the 16 parenting plan make it clear that petitioner's son was 17 to reside with his mother and his father in as equal 18 amounts of time as possible . We are reluctant t o 19 frustrate their intent on a record that is less than 20 certain regarding with which parent petitioner's son 21 actually resided with at any given time during the 22 year in issue . 23 Instead, we consider the resolution of this 24 dispute to rest with the application of sectio n 25 152(c)(4)(B)(ii) . As relevant here, that section Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 provides that if both parents treat the child as a 2 qualifying child, then "if the child resides with both 3 parents for the same amount of time during suc h 4 taxable year, the parent with the highest adjuste d 5 gross income" in effect, is entitled to the dependency 6 exemption deduction for the child . 7 In this case the evidence suggests, but does 8 not firmly establish, that the mother of petitioner's 9 son also treated petitioner's son as her qualifying 10 child. for 2005 . We will hold the record open for a 11 sufficient period of time so the parties ca n 12 supplement the record by a stipulation showing : (1) 13 whether the mother of petitioner's son filed a Federal 14 income tax return for 2005 ; and if so, (2) whether she 15 treated petitioner's son as a qualifying child on her 16 2005 Federal income tax return ; and if so, (3) th e 17 adjusted gross income shown on that return . Section 18 152(c) (4) (B) (i.i) clearly makes such information from 19 one parent of a child relevant in the determination of 20 disputes such as this with respect to the othe r 21 parent . See sec . 6103(h) (4) (B) and (C) . 22 Under the circumstances resolvin g 23 petitioner's entitlement to a dependency exemption 24 deduction for his son will resolve the remaining 25 issues in this case . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate 2 order will be issued . 3 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 4 fact and opinion in this case . 5 (Whereupon, at 1 :22 p .m ., the bench opinion 6 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 2 0 2 1 22 2 3 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .