TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Wade U. Davis & Shane Guerrero-Davis
Docket Number: 11068-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/16/2011
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 RMM WADE U. DAVIS & SHANE GUERRERO-DAVIS, Petitioners, v. Docket No. 11068-09 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioners and to respondent a copy of transcript of Kroupa at Seattle, Washington on January 19, 2011, containing her oral on respondent' s Motion for Summary Judgment . the above case before Judge Diane L. fact and opinion rendered after the hearing the pages of the the trial of findings of In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an order and decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 16, 2011 SERVED Feb 17 2011 2 1 2 3 4 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa Davis & Guerrero-Davis v. Commissioner Docket No. 11068-09 January 19,.2011 THE CLERK: Docket No. 11068-09, ,Wade U. 5 Davis and Shane Guerrero-Davis . 6 7 8 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 9 of fact and opinion. These oral findings of fact and 10 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 11 other case. 12 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 13 authority granted in Section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All' 14 15 16 17 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for 2007, the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Wade Davis appeared on his own behalf. 18 Petitioner Shane Guerrero-Davis did not appear nor did 19 anyone appear on her behalf. Kristin Joe appeared on 20 behalf of the respondent. 21 Respondent determined a $1,850 deficiency in 22 petitioners' income tax for 2007 in a statutory 23 deficiency notice. Respondent disallowed petitioners 24 25 the child tax credit for 2007 because petitioners failed to have a qualifying child. In this regard, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 i respondent determined that petitioners were not 2 entitled to claim Mr. Davis bîological daughter as a 3 4 dependent because they failed to include a waiver from the child's biological mother who had custody of the 5 child in 2007. 6 7 Findings of Fact and Opinion: Some of the facts have been stipulated and they are so found. 8 Petitioners resided in Washington at the time they 9 filed the petition.with the Court. 10 Petitioner Mr. Davis had a daughter in 1995. 11 Mr. Davis was never married to the child's mother. In 12 2001, Mr. Davis and the child's mother signed an Order 13 of Child Support regarding the child that provided that 14 Mr. Davis would be entitled to claim the dependency 15 16 17 exemption for the daughter in odd numbered years and the mother would claim the child as a dependent in even numbered years. The Order also provided that 18 Mr. Davis' right to claim his biological child as a 19 20 21 dependent in odd numbered years was conditioned upon him being current with total child support payments. The Order further required the child's biological 22 mother and the custodial parent to sign the Federal tax 23 dependency exception waiver (which is Form 8332 24 entitled Release/Revocation of Release of Claim to 25 Exemption for Child by Custodial Parent). The child Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 lived with her mother during the entire year and 2 Mr. Davis was current with his child support 3 obligations in 2007. 4 5 6 Petitioners filed a Form 1040A for 2007, claiming Mr. Davis' biological daughter as a dependent and claiming they were entitled to the child tax 7 credit. Petitioners did not attach a signed copy of 8 9 10 11 12 Form 8332. ' Mr. Davis appeared at the February 22nd, 2010, trial session in Seattle, Washington, and orally moved for a continuance. He intended to-proceed in state coùrt to request the state court to order the child's 13 mother to sign Form 8332. No hearing ever occurred in 14 15 state court and the child's mother continues to refuse to sign the Form 8332. Petitioner Mrs. Davis is not 16 participating in the case because she no longer -- she 17 is no longer married to Mr. Davis, which 18 non-participation does not absolve her of her joint 19 liability for the deficiency for 2007, when they were 20 married. 21 22 23 Respondent filed a motion for'summary judgment on December 1st, 2010, asserting that he was entitled to a decision as a matter of law. The Court ordered 24 petitioners to file a response or an objection to 25 respondent's motion on or before January 6th, 2011, and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 calendared respondent's motion for a hearing. The 2 Court held a hearing on respondent's motion on 3 January 18th, 2011, in Šeattle, Washington. As noted 4 Mrs. Davis did not appear or have anyone appear on her 5 behalf at the hearing. 6 We begin with the burden of proof. The burden 7 of proof is generally on the taxpayers . Rule 8 9 142(a) (1) . This principle is not affected by section 7491 here. Accordingly, petitioners have the burden of 10 proof. 11 12 13 We now address whether a noncustodial parent is entitled to a dependency exemption. The parties do not dispute that the daughter is the biological child 14 of Mr. Davis and that Mr. Davis was not married in 2007 15 16 to the child's mother. The parties further agree that the child's mother was the custodial parent of the 17 child in 2007. 18 The child's mother did not provide Mr. Davis 19 with a written waiver of her right as custodial parent 20 21 22 23 to claim the child as a dependent in 2007, an odd numbered year. Mr. Davis asks us to enforce the language of the child support order to allow him to claim his biological daughter notwithstanding the lack 24 of consent from the custodial parent. This we cannot 25 do. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 2 The law is clear. A taxpayer may generally claim a dependency exemption for a relative over.half 3 of whose support the staxpayer provides. Secs. 4 151(a), (c) (1),152(a). Special rules apply to allow the 5 noncustodial parent to claim the dependency exemption 6 for a child if the custodial parent signs a written 7 declaration releasing his or her claim to the deduction 8 and the noncustodial parent attaches the declaration to 9 his or her tax return. Sec.. 152(e) (1). Here, no 10 signed waiver existed at the time petitioners claimed 11 Mr. Davis' biological daughter as a dependent for 2007. 12 We are sympathetïc to petitioners' position. 13 We are nonetheless bound by the language of the statute 14 15 16 as it is written. Michaels v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1412, 1417 (1986). The statute prescribes the precise circumstance in which a noncustodial parent is entitled 17 , to a dependency exemption See Neal v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. Memo. 1999-97. Petitioners have not shown that 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they qualify. Moreover, if we ruled in Mr. Davis' favor, we may find ourselves in the middle of a child custody fight similar to those which Congress intended to remove from the Federal courts when it amended section 152(e) in 1984. See Miller v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 184, 196 (2000). Accordingly, åse sustain respondent's determination disallowing petitioners a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 dependency exemption for the daughter in 2007. We last address the child tax credit. Section 24 (a) authorizes a child tax credit with respect to each "qualifying child" of the taxpayer. The term "qualifying child" is defined in section 24 (c) . As relevant here, a "qualifying child" means an individual 7 with respect to whom the taxpayer is allowed to claim 8 9 as a dependent under section 152. Sec. 24 (c) (1) (A) . We have already held that petitioners are not 10 entitled to claim dependency exemption for Mr. Davis' 11 biological daughter and therefore this child is not a 12 13 "qualifying child" within the meaning of section 24 (c) . If follows, therefore, that petitioners are not 14 entitled to a child tax credit under section 24. 15 To reflect the foregoing,. decision will be 16 entered for respondent . We shall also issue an order 17 granting respondent's motion for summary judgment 18 against petitioners for 2007. 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. Thank you. We are done . (Whereupon, at 3:09 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888