TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Christopher M. Chavez
Docket Number: 419-14
Judge: Jacobs
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/18/2015
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CHRISTOPHER M. CHAVEZ, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 419-14. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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 to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above-case before Judge Julian I. Jacobs at Phoenix, Arizona, on February 3, 2015, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Julian I. Jacobs Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 1 8, 2015 SERVED MAR 1 8 2015 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge Julian I. Jacobs February 4, 2015 3 Christopher M. Chavez v. Commissioner 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Docket No. 419-14 THE COURT: In this case the petitioner who is Christopher M. Chavez timely filed his federal income tax return for the year 2011. After examination of that tax return a notice of deficiency was issued to the petitioner for 2011, and that notice of deficiency was issued on November 25 2_ol3 44Ã. On his 2011 federal income tax return the petitioner claimed dependency exemptions for his two minor children, ERC who was born in 1999 and KMC who was born in 1994. Petitioner is the non-custodial parent and claimed his daughters based on fha creative .) dissolution of a non-covenant marriage which was c:- entered by the Superior Court of Arizona, County of Apache. The dependents, the two minor children, resided with their mother, Melissa H. Chavez, during the tax year 2011. She was the custodial parent for the children and also claimed the two children as dependents on her tax return for the year 2011. The rom*iva dissolution requires the P er petitioner to pay child support. h&ë child support was, in fact, paid by the petitioner. The decree of 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 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 dissolution also provides that Mr. Chavez will have the right to claim both ERC and KMC on his federal and state income tax returns as dependent deductions. As stated, he did so in compliance with the divorce decree. Section 151(c) of the Internal Revenue Code allows a taxpayer to deduct an exemption amount for each individual who is a dependent, as defined in section 152 for the taxable year. As pertinent here to, section 152(a)(1) defines a dependent as a qualifying child. In this particular case, the two children did not share the same place of abode with him for more than one-half of the year and, therefore, the children are not qualifying children, aw uvL ä quàlify..tng cn1 because one of the requirements for a qualifying child is that that child must have the same principle place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the taxable year. And it's for that reason the children are not qualifying children. In the case of a divorce or separated parents, section 152(e) provides a special rule to determine which parent is entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for the child. In general, , a child who is in the custody of one or both 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 of the child's parents for more than one-half of the calendar year and who receives more than one-half of his or her support from parents who are divorced or separated or who live apart at all times during the last six months of the calendar year will be considered a qualifying child of the custodial . parent. In this case Melissa A. Chavez is considered to be the custodial parent because section 152(e)(4)(a) defines the custodial parent as the parent having custody for the greater portion of the calendar year. Conversely, section 152(e)(4) (b) defines the non-custodial parent as the parent who is not the custodial parent. So in the instant case, Melissa H. Chavez is the custodial parent with respect to the year 2011 and the petitioner, Christopher M. Chavez is considered the non-custodial parent for the year 2011. Pursuant to section 152(e) a child will be treated as a qualifying child of the non-custodial parent, that is the petitioner in this case, if and when certain criteria are met. One of those requirements is that the custodial parent signs a 23 written declaration that such custodial parent will 24 25 not claim the child as a dependent for any taxable year beginning in the calendar year. In other words, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 in order for Mr. Chavez to receive the dependency deduction which he desires as a hüs Lodi parent, he 3 must obtain from the custodial parent a written 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 declaration that the custodial parent, that is his former wife, will not claim your child as a dependent for any taxable year, meaning 2011. In this particular case the custodial parent refused and thus failed to provide that document to the petitioner. Because no documents were attached to the petitioner's 2011 tax form evidencing the petitioner's right to claim dependency exemption for the two children he is not entitled under the federal tax laws to a deduction for those two children. Mr. Chavez did produce a copy of a f.sws.eft dVcree providing that he is entitled to claim dependency exemption for 2011, but a copy of that court decree is not sufficient to enable him to claim the child dependency exemptions. We have no doubt that Mr. Chavez fulfilled his obligations under the consent decree, but it is the Internal Revenue Code which ultimately governs the taxpayer's ability to claim a federal income tax deduction and federal law is strict in allowing these deductions. We therefore are required by law to 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 conclude that Mr. Chavez is not entitled to the claimed dependency exemption deduction for 2011 with respect to ERC and KMC. Hence, thImiaatia Mr. Chavez 5 will be required to pay the tax deficiency as determined by the Internal Revenue Service. That tax deficiency is $2,072 for the year 2011. That concludes this bench opinion. (Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the above entitled matter was concluded.) 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