TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Princess T. Jallah
Docket Number: 31162-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/06/2010
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 .PRINCESS T . JALLAH, Petitioner, Docket-,No . 31162-08 S COMMISSIONER .OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . 0 R D E R; 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 June 22, 2010, . containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e 91 Dated : Washington, D .C . July 6, 2010 1 Bench Opinion by Special-Trial-Judge Lewis R . Carluzz o 2 Princess T . Jallah v .. Commissioner Docket No . 31162-08 S 3 June 22, 201 0 4 THE COURT : ..The Court has decided to render ora l 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the followin g represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . This proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency is a small tx case subject to the .provisions o f 9 Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1 .986, a s 10 amended , and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules o f 11 Practice and Procedure . 12 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 13 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenu e 14 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court 15 Rules of Practice and Procedure . Subsequent section 16 references contained in this bench opinion are to sections 17 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect 18 for 2007 . 19 Princess T .= Ja.llah appeared pro se . Michael W . 20 Bitner appeared on behalf-of respondent . 21 In a notice of deficiency dated September 15, 22 2008, respondent determined a $5,806 deficiency i n 23 petitioner's 2007 Federal income tax . The issues for 24 decision are : (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to a n 25 exemption deduction for either of two individuals shown as, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n ('202)- 628-4888 1 "dependents on her timely filed 2007 Federal income tax 2 return ; (2) whether petitioner qualifies as a head o f 3 household ; (3) whether petitioner is entitled to a .child ta x credit (including an additional child tax credit) ; and (4 ) whether petitioner is entitled to an earned income credit . Some of the facts have been stipulated and are s o found ., At,the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Missouri . 9 In bench opinions'with opinions to which th e 10 provisions of Section 7463 apply, such as this one, it is 11 normal to include a brief summarization of the facts tha t 12, gave rise to the Federal income . tax issues in dispute . See 13 Section 7463 (last sentence) . . As noted in her petition and 14 was obvious :-from her presentation at"trial, the issue s 15 involved in this case have . resurrected painful memories for 16 petitioner . Under the circumstances in this case, an d 17 taking into account statements contained in the petitioner , 18 we are constrained to be brief and eliminate from ou r -19 discussion many of the underlying facts, some as alleged in 20 the petition, but proceed as though those facts as with the 21 stipulated facts are so,found . When petitioner was five 22 years old, .she .and her : younger brother-were rescued by 23 Mariah Tinyan (Ms . Tinyan)-who, although not related by 24 blood to petitioner, acted as her surrogate parent eve r 2'5 since . Because of her emotional attachment with, gratitud e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 towards and loyalty to Ms . Tinyan, petitioner considers Ms . 2 Tinyan to be her mother in every sense of the word, an d 3 considers the children of Ms . Tinyan to be her "brothers" 4 and "sisters" . 5 Petitioner held two jobs during 2007 . The wag e 6 income earned from those jobs ; was her only source of incom e 7 during that year . During 2007 petitioner lived with Ms . Tinyan and Ms . Tinyan's children in a rented house . For th e 9 most part , Ms . Tinyan paid for the food consumed at the 10 house, but otherwise , petitioner and Ms . Tinyon shared, more 11 or less equally, rent , utilities, and other maintenanc e 12 expenses incurred by the household . 13 As relevant here, on her 2007 return , which was 14 prepared by a paid income tax return preparer , petitioner ; 15 (1) Reports her wage i ncome totaling $ 26,470 from her two 16 jobs ; ( 2) shows her filing status as a head of household ; 17 (3) claims a dependency exemption deduction for two of Ms . 18 Tinyan ' s children , namely, A .T . and B .T ., one of which is 19 described on the return as petitioner's brother , and th e 20 other as petitioner's sister ; (4) claims a child tax credit 21 .(including an additional child tax credit ) by treating A .T . 22 and B .T . each as a qualifying child for purposes of tha t 23 credit ; and (5 ) claims an earned income credit by treating 24 A .T . and B . T . each as a qualifying child for purposes of 25 that credit . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 In the above-referenced notice of deficienc y 2 respondent : (1) Disallowed the dependency exemption 3 deductions claimed for both A .T . and B .T . ; (2) changed 4 petitioner"s filing status from head of household to single, 5 and adjusted the standard deduction accordingly, (3 ) 6 disallowed the child tax credit (including the additiona l 7 child tax credit) claimed on the return ; and (4) disallowed 8 the earned income credit claimed on the return . 9 Because of its impact on the other issues, we'll 10 begin our discussion with petitioner's entitlement to the 11 dependency exemption deductions claimed for A .T . and B .T . 12 In general, a taxpayer is entitled to a n 13 additional exemption deduction for each individual who is a 14 dependent of the taxpayer for the taxable year . Sectio n 15 151(a),(c) . Ignoring exceptions not relevant here, the term 16 "dependent" as used in Section 151 and elsewhere in th e 17 Internal Revenue Code, means the taxpayer's qualifying child 18 or a qualifying relative . Section 152(a) . 19 Subject to special rules not relevant here and in 20 addition to other requirements, the term "qualifying child" 21 includes, an individual who is a "child of the taxpayer, or 22 a descendant of such child" or "a brother, sister , 23 stepbrother, stepsister of the taxpayer, or a descendant of 24 any such relative" . Section 152(c)(2) . Petitione r 25 acknowledges that she bears neither a genetic nor legal Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 2 3 relationship with either A .T . and B .T . . She argues, however , that the relationship described in Section 152(c)(1)(A ) should,not be so limited . 'we recognize her sincerity, but . 4 she is simply wrong on the point . Because neither A .T . and 5 B .T . is related' to'petitioner in a manner contemplated b y Section 152(c), neither fits within-the definition of petitioner's "qualifying child" as that term is defined in that section . 9 As noted, however, a taxpayer,'is entitled to a 10 dependency exemption deduction not only for the taxpayer's 11 qualifying child, but for the taxpayer's qualifying relativ e 12 as well . Section 152(d) sets forth various conditions that 13 must be . satisfied in order for a taxpayer to treat another 14 individual as his or, her qualifying . relative . Because both 15 A .T . and B .T . fit .within the definition of'a qualifying 16 . child with respect to Ms . .Tinyan'for the year in issue , 17 however, neither may be treated-as petitioner's qualifying 18 relative for that year . See Section 152 .(d)(1)(D ) 19 Because neither A .T . and B .T . is petitioner's 20 qualifying child or qualifying relative .for the year in 21 issue, it follows that petitioner is not entitled to a 22 dependency exemption deduction for either of them . 23, Respondent's disallowance of those . deductions are sustained . 24_ The above findings . effectively resolve all other 25 issues in this case . Because petitioner is not entitled to Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 a dependency exemption 'deduction for either A .T . and B .T ., she does not, if only for that reason, qualify as a head of household for 2007 . Sec .Section .2(b)(1)(A) . Respondent' s adjustments relating to the changer of her filing status from head of household to single are sustained . Furthermore,-because for the reasons discussed above, neither A .T . and B .T . fits within the Section 152(c) definition of petitioner's . qualify child, neither may be treated as her qualifying, child for purposes of the chil d 10 tax credit or the-earned income tax credit . See Sections 11 24(c)(1), 32(c) (3) (A) . With respect to petitioner' s 12 eligibility for an earned income credit computed without a 13 qualifying child, as pointed out in respondent's pretrial 14' memorandum, petitioner's income during 2007 effectivel y 15 denies her entitlement to one . See Section 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) . 16 Respondent's disallowance of .the child tax credit 17 (including the additional child tax credit)_,and .the earned 18 income credit are sustained . . 19 .- To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entere d 20 for respondent . 21 This concludes the, Court's oral findings of fact 22 and opinion in this case . 23 (Whereupon, at . 2 :45 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 24 above-entitled matter was concluded .. ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202)"628-4888