TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Daniel Aaron Baker
Docket Number: 20105-04
Judge: Chiechi
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 03/29/2006
Pages: 7

| | ADft. RECORD3D RVICE STAT. . I FILES T.C. Memo. 2006-60 UNITED STATES TAX COURT DANIEL AARON BAKER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 20105-04. Filed March 29, 2006. Daniel Aaron Baker, pro se. C. Teddy Li, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,556 in petitioner's Federal income tax (tax) for his taxable year 2003. The issues for decision for petitioner's taxable year 2003 are: SERVED MAR 2 9 2006 - 3 - stopped residing in the trailer, but petitioner continued to live there- until around mid-February 2003.3 Petitioner was unable to afford the payments for the mortgage loan, ground rent, and utilities with respect to the trailer after Ms. Wus stopped residing there. . . Around mid-February 2003, petitioner moved to a duplex located at 299 Barney Jenkins Road, Felton, Delaware (Barney Jenkins Road property), that a friend of his owned. While residing at the Barney Jenkins Road property, petitioner paid his friend $300 a month and shared an undisclosed amount of utility expenses. Sometime between the end of September or October 2003 and mid-November 2003, petitioner moved to a house located on 268 Fox Road, Dover, Delaware (Fox Road property), that his mother owned.. While residing at the Fox Road property in 2003, petitioner paid his mother, who was living in Florida, $125 a week. During 2003, petitioner, who worked as a plumber, and Ms. Wus were not married, lived in separate residences, and had no custody agreement concerning their daughter A who was four years old. During 2003, Ms. Wus received public assistance for A's benefit from the State of Delaware, which listed Ms. Wus as the 3There is no reliable evidence in the record establishing where the children lived after Ms. Wus stopped residing in the trailer. - 5 - petitioner picked them up from, the Daycare Center. On certain other days during the period January 2 through March 31, 2003, Ms. Wus brought.the children to, and also picked them up from, the Daycare Center. On certain other days during that period, petitioner brought the children to, and also picked them up from, the Daycare Center. During the period January 2 through March 31, 2003, the times at which the children were brought to the Daycare Center ranged from as early as 6:45 a.m. to as late as 4:20 p.m., and the times at which the children were picked up from that center ranged from 11:00 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. In most instançes, however, the children were brought to the Daycare Center before 9:00 a.m. and picked up from the Center between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. During the period January 2 through March 31, 2003, both petitioner and Ms. Wus made payments of undisclosed amounts toward the cost of the children's daycare at the Daycare Center. Petitioner timely filed his tax return for taxable year 2003 (petitioner's 2003 return). In petitioner's 2003 return, peti- tioner reported wages of $14,929, business income of $420 from Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, total income of $15,349, and adjusted gross income of $15,349. In petitioner's 2003 return, petitioner claimed (1) a dependency exemption deduction for his daughter A, (2) head of household filing status, (3) the earned income tax credit, (4) the child tax I - 7 - roborated by reliable evidence. We found the testimony of petitioner's mother to be in material respects not based upon her personal knowledge, conclusory, and serving the interests of her son petitioner. We found the testimony of Ms. Srase to be in material respects not based upon her personal knowledge, conclusory, and serving the interests of her longtime friend petitioner. We are not required to, and we shall not, rely on the testimonies of petitioner, his mother, and Ms. Srase in order to establish petitioner's position with respect to the issues presented in this case. See, e.g., Tokarski v. Commissioner., 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). Claimed Dependency Exemption Deduction Section 151(a) permits a taxpayer to deduct an exemption amount for each dependent as defined in section 152. As perti- nent here, section 152(a) defines the term "dependent" to include an individual who receives from the taxpayer over half of such individual's support for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins and who is the taxpayer's daughter. Sec. 152(a)(1). As also pertinent here, if the taxpayer's daughter receives over half of her support during the calendar year from her parents who live apart at all times during the last six months of such year and if such daughter is in the custody of one or both of her parents for more than one-half of such year, the daughter will be treated for purposes of section 152(a) as is devoid of evidence that we find to be reliable establishing that A lived with her father from January until November 2003 or that he otherwise had physical custody of A for a portion of 2003 that is greater than the portion of such year during which Ms. Wus had physical custody of A. With respect to whether petitioner provided over one-half of A's support during 2003, petitioner must show the amount of total support incurred during that year on behalf of A from all sources, and he must establish that he provided over half of that amount. See Archer v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 963, 967 (1980); Blanco v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 512, 514-515 (1971); sec. 1.152- 1(a)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs. The term "support" includes food, shelter, clothing, medical and dental care, education, and the like. Sec. 1.152-1(a)(2).(i), Income Tax Regs. The total amount of support for each claimed (cid:16)042dependent provided by all sources during the year in question must be shown by competent evidence. Blanco v. Commissioner, supra at 514. Where the amount of total support incurred on behalf of a child during such year is not shown, and may not reasonably be inferred from competent evidence, it is not possi- ble to find that the taxpayer contributed more than one-half of such child's total support. Id. at 514-515; Fitzner v. Commis- sioner, 31 T.C. 1252, 1255 (1959). Petitioner failed to maintain any records establishing i - 11 - term "head of household" is defined in section 2 (b) as an unmar- ried individual who maintains as his home a household that constitutes for more than one-half of the taxable year the principal place of abode for, inter alia, a daughter. Sec. 2(b)(1)(A). An individual is considered as maintaining a house- hold only if such individual provided over one-half of the cost of maintaining the household during the taxable year. Sec. 2(b). We find that the record is devoid of evidence that we consider to be reliable supporting petitioner's position that during his taxable year 2003 he maintained as his home a house- hold that constituted the principal place of abode, as a member of such household, of his daughter A for more than one-half of that year. On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing that .he is entitled for his taxable year 2003 to head of household filing status. Claimed Earned Income Tax Credit Section 32(a)(1) permits an eligible individual an earned income credit against such individual's tax liability. The earned income tax credit is calculated as a percentage of the individual's earned income. Sec. 32(a)(1). Section 32(a)(2) limits the credit allowed. Section 32(b) prescribes different percentages and amounts that are to be used to calculate the credit depending on whether the eligible individual has no - 13 - On the record before us, we find that petitióner has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he is entitled for his taxable year 2003 to the earned income tax credit. Claimed Child Tax Credit Section 24(a) allows a tax credit of a specified amount with respect to each qualifying child of a taxpayer. The amount of the credit allowable under section 24(a) is limited by the taxpayer's adjusted gross income and may not exceed a taxpayer's regular tax liability. Sec. 24(b).. As pertinent here, for purposes of section 24, the term "qualifying child" means a taxpayer's daughter for whom the taxpayer is entitled under section 151 to a dependency exemption deduction and who has not attained the age of 17 as of the close of the taxable year. Sec. 24(c)(1). We found above that petitioner failed to show that he is entitled for his taxable year 2003 to a dependency exemption deduction for his daughter A. On the record before us, we- find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of showing that for his taxable year 2003 A is a qualifying child for purposes of the child tax credit. 4(...continued) the earned income tax credit is completely phased out year 2003, if the individual who has no qualifying children and who is not married filing jointly has adjusted gross income that equals or exceeds $11,230. 70, 2002-2 C.B. 845, 847-848. has adjusted gross income of $15,349 for his taxable year 2003. See sec. 32(b)(1)(A) and (2); Rev. Proc. 2002- The parties agree that petitioner