TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Leon Anthony Garner
Docket Number: 15926-11S
Judge: Guy
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/21/2012
Pages: 10

SEC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 LEON ANTHONY GARNER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 15926-11S. ) ) ) ) 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 herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above-captioned case before Special Trial Judge Daniel A. Guy, Jr., at St. Louis, Missouri, on October 23, 2012, containing his oral findings 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 for respondent. (Signed) Daniel A. Guy, Jr. Special Trial Judge Dated. Washington, D.C. December 21, 2012 SERVED Dec 21 2012 Capital Reporting Company Leon Anthony Garner 10-23-2012 IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT 1 In the matter of: LEON ANTHONY GARNER, Petitioner, . v. ) ) ) ) ) ) )Docket No.15926-11S ) . . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,) ) ) Respondent. Room 9.170 Thomas F. E'agleton U.S. Courthouse 111·S. 10th Street St. Louis, Missouri Tuesday October 23, 2012 The above-entitled matter came on for bench 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 opinion, pursuant to notice, at 2:50 p.m. BEFORE: HONORABLE DANIEL A. GUY, JR., Special Trial Judge A P P E A R A N C E S: For the Petitioner: (No Appearances) For the Respondent: (No .Appearances) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Leon Anthony Garner 10-23-2012 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (2:50 p.m. ) THE CLERK: Calling Docket No. 15926-11S, Leon Anthony Garner. (Whereupon, a bench opinion was rendered.) 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) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Leon Anthony Garner 10-23-2012 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Daniel A. Guy, 3 2 Jr. October 23, 2012 Leon Anthony Garner v. 3 Commissioner Docket No. 15926-11S 4 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and 6 7 the following represents the Court ' s oral findings of fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and 8 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 9 other case. 10 11 This proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency is a small tax case conducted pursuant 12 to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal 13 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 14 through 174 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 15 Procedure. 16 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 17 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 18 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and rule 152 of the 19 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 20 . Hereinafter in this bench opinion, section 21 22 23 references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for 2009. · Petitioner Leon Anthony Garner, here.inafter 24 petitioner, appeared pro so. Karen O. Myrick 25 appeared on behalf of respondent. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Leon Anthony Garner 10-23-2012 1 The issues for decision are whether 2 petitioner is entitled to a deduction for a 3 dependency exemption and a child tax credit for his 4 4 minor son (L.G.) for the taxable year 2009. 5 The parties filed with the Court a 6 stipulation of facts and a supplemental stipulation 7 of facts, with attached exhibits, which are 8 9 incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner and his now former spouse, 10 Yamara Cruz, hereinafter Ms. Cruz, were married in 11 2001 and divorced in 2005. During their marriage, 12 petitioner and Ms. Cruz had one child, L.G. The 13 dissolution of the marriage was memorialized by the 14 Family Court of St. Louis, Missouri, in a Family 15 Court Judgment dated April 15, 2005, which included 16 as an attachment a Parenting Plan that is signed by 17 both petitioner and Ms. Cruz. The Family Court 18 19 Judgment provides that petitioner and Ms. Cruz shall have joint physical and legal custody of L.G. The 20 Parenting Plan states that petitioner will have 21 22 23 24 custody of L.G. from 7:00 p.m. Thursday evening until 7:00 p.m. Sunday evening, or the equivalent of three days per week.. Neither the Family Court Judgment nor the 25 Parenting Plan addresses whether petitioner or Ms. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Leon Anthony Garner 10-23-2012 1 Cruz would be permitted to claim L.G. as a dependent 2 for Federal tax purposes. The record also includes a 3 preliminary draft -of the Parenting Plan which 4 indicates that petitioner would have physical custody 5 of L.G. a greater portion of the time than Ms. Cruz, 5 6 that the parties would share the "tax credit", and 7 petitioner would claim L.G. as a dependent in odd 8 9 10 numbered years. The draft Parenting Plan was not signed by either party or by their attorneys. Between 2005 and 2008, petitioner and Ms. 11 Cruz claim L. G. as a dependent on their Federal 12 income tax returns in alternating years, with 13 petitioner claiming the deduction in 2005 and 2007. 14 15 16 The situation changed in 2009 when both petitioner and Ms. Cruz claimed L.G. as a dependent on their tax returns. Petitioner did not attach a form 8332, 17 Release/Revocation of Release of Claim to Exemption 18 for Child by Custodial Parent, or its equivalent, to 19 his tax return for 2009. 20 Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to 21 petitioner determining that he was not entitled to 22 the deduction for L.G. or the related child tax 2'3 credit for 2009. Petitioner filed a timely petition 24 for redetermination with the Court. 25 Petitioner testified at trial that, despite (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Leon Anthony Garner 10-23-2012 6 1 2 3 4 the three-day weekly custody period described in the final Parenting Plan, he actually had physical custody of L.G. at least half of the time during 2009 and probably more. Petitioner did not offer any 5 documentation or the testimony of any other witness 6 7 in support of this proposition. Section 151(c) provides that a taxpayer 8 generally is allowed a deduction for the applicable 9 exemption amount for each individual who is a 10 dependent. Section 152(a) defines the term 11 "dependent" to include a "qualifying child". A 12 qualifying child must satisfy the relationship, place 13 of abode, age, and support requirements set forth in 14 section 152(c) (1). Petitioner contends that L.G. is 15 his.qualifying chi d and, therefore, he is entitled 16 to the dependenc exemption for L.G. under section 17 18 152(c) (4) (B) (i) because he was the parent with whom the child lived for the longest period of time during 19 2009. Respondent contends that the record reflects 20 21 22 that ms. Cruz was L.G.'s custodial parent during 2009. We begin with the fundamental principle of 23 Federal tax litigation. that the Commissioner's 24 determinations normally are presumed correct. See 25 INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U. S. 79, 84 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 . Capital Reporting Company Leon Anthony Garner 10-23-2012 (1992) ; Welch v. Helvering, 290 U. S. 111, 115 (1933) . 7 In conjunction with this principle, tax deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he or she is 1 2 3 4 . 5 entitled to any deduction claimed. Rule 142 (a) ; 6 Deputy v. duPont, 308 U.S. 488, 493 (1940); New 7 Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934) . 8 9 Petitioner has not met his burden of 10 proving· that L. G. lived with him for a longer period 11 of time during 2009 than with Ms. Cruz. Petitioner's 12 te.stimony as to the time that he had physical custody 13 of his son during 2009 was, at times, inconsistent, 14 vague and conclusory. We are not required to, nor 15 shall we, refly on his testimony alone to establish j)(. 16 his entitlement to the dependency deduction and child 17 tax credit in dispute. See, e.g., Shea v. 18 Commissioner, f12 T.C. 183, 188 (1999). Although p 19 petitioner testified that other individuals could 20 have testified to the amount of time he had physical 21 22 custody of L.G. during 2009, petitioner did not call those individuals to testify at trial. The Court 23 finds petitioner's testimony insufficient to 24 contradict the description of the custody arrangement 25 for L. G. as set forth in the final Parenting Plan (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Leon Anthony Garner 10-23-2012 8 1 which provided that Ms. Cruz would have custody of 2 3 4 L.G. for the greater period of time. Under the circumstances, in accordance with section 152(e), petitioner was obliged to obtain a 5 written declaration from Ms. Cruz stating that she 6 would not claim L.G. as a dependent for 2009 and 7 attach that statement to his tax return. There is no 8 dispute that petitioner did not attach such a written 9 declaration to his tax return for 2009. 10 In sum, petitioner failed to prove that 11 L.G. was his qualifying child during the taxable year 12 2009. consequently, petitioner was not entitled to 13 either the dependency exemption for L.G. under section 151(c) or the child tax credit under section 24. A Decision will be entered for respondent accordingly. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 3:01 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 2 4 25 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Leon Anthony Garner 10-23-2012 9 1 2 3 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER AND PROOFREADER CASE NAME: Leon Anthony Garner v. Commissioner DOCKET NO. : 1592 6-11S 4 We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the 5 6 7 foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 9, inclusive, are the true, accurate and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic 8. recording by Stuart Karoubas, on October 23, 2012, 9 before the United States Tax Court at its session in 10 St. Louis, Missouri, in accordance with the 11 applicable provisions of the current verbatim 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 reporting contract of the Court, and have verified the accuracy of the transcript by comparing the typewritten transcript against the verbal recording. Lisa M. Peltonen (Transcriber) 10/26/1 (Date) Nancy Smith (Proofreader) 10/2 /12 (Date) (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012