TAX COURT OPINION

Case: David Shawn & Robynn L. Emmons
Docket Number: 3878-11
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/20/2012
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 DAVID SHAWN AND ROBYNN L. EMMONS, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDE R Docket No. 3878-11 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 the pages of the transcript of the proceedings of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa at Mobile, Alabama on May 9, 2012, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the trial. In accordance with the oral fin ings of fact and opinion, an appropriate decision will be entered for petitioners. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, DC June18,2012 9999 .JUN 20 2012 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 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa David Shawn & Robyn L. Emmons Docket No. 3878-11 May 9, 2012 BENCH OPINION THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE AND THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT' S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIÓN. THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority grantëd in section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for 2008, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioners appeared on their own behalf and Christopher Pavilonis appeared on behalf of Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT Some df the facts have been stipulated and are so found. We incorporate the stipulation of facts and the accompañying exhibits by this reference. Petitioners resided in Alabama at the time they filed the petition. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 4 Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for 2008. Petitioners claimed MJ and CJ as dependants on their return. Both dependents are listed as Petitioners' daughters and resided with them for 2008. Petitioner Robynn Emmons (f/k/a Robynn Johnson) separated from Louis Johnson around July 18, 1997 and divorced him in 1998. The divorce decree did not specify whether Ms. Emmons or Mr. Johnson, the biological parents of CJ, were entitled to claim CJ as a dependent. The divorce decree was modified at least twice. They modified it each time to amend payment obligations, not anything to do with the dependency exemption for CJ. RespoÈdent obtained a copy of Form 8332, Release of Claim to Exemption for Child of Divorced or Separated Parents, indicating that Ms . Emmons signed a release of clai(cid:16)040nto the dependency exemptions for CJ and MJ for 1998 through 2020. Ms. Emmons denies signing the Form 8332. Both Petitioners and Mr. Johnson claimed CJ as a dependent from 1998 to 2008. Ms. Emmons never saw a copy of the Form 8332 until Respondent provided her a copy during the examination of Petitioners' return for 2008!. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 Respohdent issued a deficiency notice to Petitioners disallowing the dependency exemption Petitioners claimed for MJ and CJ. Petitioners filed a timely petitinn for redetermination with this Court. Respondent now concedes that Petitioners are entitled to the dependency exemption and child tax credit for MJ for 2008. OPINION We are asked to decide whether Petitioners or Mr. Johnson, the non-custodial parent of CJ, is entitled to claim CJ as a dependent for 2008 and also claim a child tax credit for CJ for 2008. We begin with the rules o claim a child as a dependent. A taxpayer is allowed an annual exemption deduction for each "dependent." Dependent for this purpose is defined in section 152. Sec. 151[c]. The term "dependent!" includes a qualifying child and a qualifying relahive. Sec. 152[a]. As relevant here, a "qualifying child" of the taxpayer is an individual that is a child of the taxpayer, had the same principal place: of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the tax year, met certain age requirements, and the taxpayer provided over one-half of the child's Ísupport for the tax year. Sec. 152[c]. A special rule applies where the parents of Heriftage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 I · 6 a dependent child are divorced or legally separated. The dependency exemption deduction is generally conferred on the parent with legal custody of the child (the custodial parent). Sec. 152(e) (1). An exception applies, however, to the general rule for a custodial parent . A noncustodial parent may claim the exemption where the custodial parent executes a valid written declaration releasing his or her claim to the exemption and the noncustodial parent attaches that declaration to his or her Federal income tax return. Sec. 152 (e) (2) . CJ is the biological daughter of Petitioner Ms. Emmons and Mr. Johnson. Petitioners have established that they satisfied the relationship, age, residency and support requirements to claim CJ for 2008. Accordingly, CJ is the qualifying child of Petitioners within the meaning of section 152 [c] and (e) (1) . Respondent contends, however, that the Form 8332 relinquishes Petitioners' claim to the dependency exemption for CJ for 2008. We disagree. First, Ms. Emmons denies ever signing the Form 8332 and we found her testimony c!redible. She stated that she never saw the Form 8332 until Respondent provided her a copy during the examination of Petitioners' return. In Heritage Reporting Corporation. (202) 628-4888 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 7 addition, we found too many inconsistencies with the explanation Mr. Johnson gave for when and why the Form 8332 was signed. Mr. Johnson explained that CJ and MJ resided with him (and Ms. Emmons) for ten months to enable him to claim both girls as dependents. The girls only resided with Mr. Johnson in 1997, not 1998. In addition, Ms. Emmons stated that she separated from Mr. Johnson aroùnd July 18, 1997 and took the children with her. Thus, the girls did not reside with Mr. Johnson for ten months in 1997. Moreover, the second part of.Form 83 2 provides that Ms. Emmons agrees not to claim CJ and MJ as dependents from 1998 through 2020. This would make CJ in her late 20's and MJ even older in 2020. This is nonsensical to the Court. In addition Mr. Jo nson had no visitation rights regarding MJ. We further note that nothing in the divorce decree specified which parent would be able to claim CJ as a dependent. Moreover, Ms. Emmons and Mr. Johnson modified the divorce decree on at least two occasions and nône of those modifications addressed the dependency exemption. The only document that addresses the dÊpendency exemptions is the Form 8332 that Mr. Johnson executed. General rules for interpreting a contract provide that provisions and documents are interpreted against the drafter of the HeriÊage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 8 document. We therefore find that Ms. Emmons never released her right to claim CJ as a dependent. Accordingly, we ihold that Petitioners are entitled to claim CJ as a dèpendent for 2008. We now turn to the child tax credit. Respondent contends that Petitioners are not entitled to the child tay credit for CJ because Ms. Emmons relinquished he right to claim CJ as a dependent. We have already rejected this argument . We therefore hold that Petitioners are entitled to the child tax credit for CJ for 2008. To reflect the foregoing and Respondent's concession, a decision will be entered for Petitioners. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . (Whereupon, at 1:31 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888