TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Nigeal A. Griffith-Brooks
Docket Number: 1235-14
Judge: Gustafson
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/30/2014
Pages: 6

JRN UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 NIGEAL A. GRIFFITH-BROOKS, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 1235-14. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the opinion of the Court as set forth in the pages of the transcript of the proceedings before Judge David Gustafson at Boston, Massachusetts, on December 16, 2014, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion, 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 Gustafson at Boston, Massachusetts, containing his oral fimdings 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, decision will be entered under Rule 155. (Signed) David Gustafson Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. December 30, 2014 SERVED Dec 30 2014 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Judge David Gustafson December 16, 2014 3 Nigeal A. Griffith - Brooks v. Commissioner 4 5 6 7 Docket: 1235-14 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render the following as its oral Findings of Fact and 8 Opinion in this case. This Bench Opinion is made 9 pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) 10 11 12 13 14 15 of the Internal Revenue Code, and Tax Court Rule 152; and it shall not be relied on as precedent in any other case. By a notice of deficiency dated December 3, 2013 (Ex. 2-J), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined a deficiency in petitioner Nigeal 16 Griffith-Brooks's 2012 Federal income tax, plus an 17 18 19 accuracy-related penalty. After Respondent's concession of dependency exemptions and the penalty, the issue remaining for decision is whether Mr. 20 Griffith is entitled to claim his fiance's two 21 22 23 24 25 daughters as "qualifying children" (for purposes of the earned income credit, the child credit, and additional child credit). We hold that he is not. The case was tried in Boston on December 15, 2014. Mr. Griffith represented himself, and 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 respondent was represented by Erika B. Cormier. FINDINGS OF FACT In 2012 Mr. Griffith lived with and financially supported Ms. Serey Bory and her two 5 minor children. (Stip. 3, 7.) Mr. Griffith and Ms. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Bory identify each other as fiances, and the parties have stipulated that in 2012 they were fiances (Stip. 3), but they were not married in 2012 (Stip. 4) and remain unmarried today. The two children are not biologically related to Mr. Griffith (Stip. 6), and he has not adopted them (Stip. 5). On his Form 1040 tax return for 2012 (Ex. 1-J), Mr. Griffith declared the two children as his dependents, referring to each of them as "stepchild". He also referred to them as such on Schedule EIC (on which he claimed earned income credit); and, with respect to both children, he claimed the child tax credit on line 51 and the additional child tax credit on line 65. The IRS examined Mr. Griffith's 2012 return and issued a notice of deficiency on December 3, 2013, disallowing the dependency exemptions and the credits. (Stip. 8; Ex. 2-J.) On January 23, 2014, Mr. 24 Griffith timely filed his petition in this Court. At 25 that time he resided in Massachusetts. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company OPINION 5 Mr. Griffith's entitlement to the disputed items at issue turns on whether his fiance's children were his "qualifying child[ren]" in 2012. They were not, for reasons we now explain. One can claim someone as a dependent, for purposes of the dependency exemption deduction under section 151, if that person is either a "qualifying child", sec. 152(a)(1), or a "qualifying relative", sec. 152(a)(2). The IRS has conceded Mr. Griffith's entitlement to claim the two children as his dependents because they are his "qualifying relative[s]". The definition of that term does not require any particular relation by blood or marriage but rather can be satisfied if the person simply "has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer's household". Sec. 152(d)(2)(H). The tax benefits that the IRS has not conceded--i.e., the earned income credit, the child credit, and the additional child credit--all require that the person claimed be a "qualifying child", under section 152(a)(1). The IRS points out that in 2012 Mr. Griffith and the two children did not have the "relationship" required in section 152(c)(2). Mr. 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 6 1 Griffith claimed the two children as his step- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 children; and if it had been true in 2012 that they were his step-children and he was their step-father by virtue of having married their mother, then he would have been entitled to the credit, since the "relationship" requirement is satisfied in the case of a "stepson, or stepdaughter" of the taxpayer. Sec. 152(f)(1) (A)(i). However, that claim was not correct. As we stated in Collier v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-126, "the term 'stepdaughter' in section 152(f) (1) (A) is not defined in the Code. 'Where, as is the case here, the statute does not define the word, we generally interpret it by using its ordinary and common meaning.' Carlson v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 87, 93, 2001 WL 180173 (2001) (fn.ref.omitted). 17 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1223 (11th 18 19 20 21 ed. 2008), defines the word 'stepdaughter' to mean 'a daughter of one's wife or husband by a former partner". The two children at issue are daughters of Ms. Bory, and Ms. Bory was not (and is not) Mr. 22 Griffith's wife. Therefore, her daughters are not his 23 step-daughters. Consequently, neither of Mr. 24 Griffith's dependents was a "qualifying child" in 25 2012. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 Eligibility for the earned income credit requires a "qualifying child". See sec. 32 (c) (1) (A) (i) . Eligibility for the child credit (sec. 24(a)) and the additional child credit (sec. 24 (d) ) requires a "qualifying child". See sec. 24 (a) . Because Mr. Griffith's dependents were not his children or step-children, none was a "qualifying child", and he is not eligible for these disputed benefits. So that Mr. Griffith's tax liability can be recomputed to take account of the IRS's concessions, decision will be entered under Rule 155. This concludes the Court's oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:15 a.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