TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mickel & Mary Briscoe
Docket Number: 20011-09
Judge: Vasquez
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 07/11/2011
Pages: 8

T.C. Memo. 2011-165 UNITED STATES TAX COURT MICKEL AND MARY BRISCOE, Petitioners v. COMMISHIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent" Docket No. 20011-09. Filed July 11, 2011. Mickel and Mary Briscoe, pro sese. Ardney J. Boland III, Susan S. Canavello, and Emily Brouillette (st udent ) for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDIliGS OF FAOT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Respond nt determined a $1,510 deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax for 2007.1 The issues for Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and (continued. . . ) SERVED JUL 1 1 2011 - 2 - decision are: (1) Whether petitioners are entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for J.B. ;2 and (2) whether petitioners are entitled to a child tax credit for J.B. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in Louisiana when the petition was filed. Petitioner Mickel Briscoe (Mr. Briscoe) was formerly married to Nedra Ceaser (Ms. Ceaser) . They had one child, J.B. Mr. Briscoe and Ms. Ueaser'ilfvorced on November 4, 2002. The Louisiana 16th Judicial District Court (State court) entered a jud<jment of divorce (judgment) dissolving Mr. Briscoe and Ms. Ceaser ' s marriage . The judgment awarded Ms . Ceaser sole custody of J.B. In 2006 Ms . Ceaser initiated an expedited child support proceeding against Mr. Briscoe,aseeking an increase in child support. On November 6, 2006, the State court issued an order increasing Mr. Briscoe's child support obligations (support order) . The support order also states that "Mickel Briscoe is hereby grantied the right to claim the tax dependäncy exemption ( . . continued) Procedure . It is the policy of the Court to refer to a minor by his or her initials . See Rule 2'7 (a) (3) . - 3 -- for the minor chlld(ren)." The support order contains Ms. Ceaser's signatuce but not her Social Security number. Petitioners claimed J.B. as a dependent and claimed a child tax credit of $1 000 on their Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2007, dated March 19, 2008. Petitioners did not attach Form 8332 Release of Claim to Exemption'for -Child of Divorced or Separated Parents, to their return. Instead, they attached a copy of: the support order. Petitioners did not ask Ms. Ceaser to sign a Form 8332 or any other document declaring she wouldsnot claim J.B. as a dependent. Mr. Briscoe thought attaching the su port order was sufficient and was not familiar with the'requirement to attach~Form 8332. Ms. Ceáser claimed C.B. as a dependent on her 2007 return. PINION I. Burden of Proof Petitioners have neither claimed nor shown that they satisfied the requirements of section 7491(a) to shift the burden of proof to respondent with"regard to any factual issue. Accordingly, pet:tioners bear the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a). II. Dependency Exemption Deduction Section 151(a) and (c) allows taxpayers an annual exemption deduction for each "dependent" as defined in section 152. A dependent is either a qualifying child or a qualifying relative. - 4 - Sec. 152(a) . The requirement is disjunctive, and, accordingly, satisfaction of either the qualifying c,hild requirement or the qualifying relative requirement allows' the individual to be claimed as-a dependent. A qualifying- child must meet four requirements, for :the taxpayer to .qualify for:the deduction. See sec . 152 (c) (1) (A) - (D) . The pertinent «factor here r is the residence,requirement: -the individual must, have the same principal place of . abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the staxable year.? Sec . 152 (c) (1).(B) . Mr. Briscoe has not demonstrated that J.B. lived with him for more ethan one-half of 2007. Thus, J.B. ,is not Mr. Briscoe's qualifying child-under section 1.52 (c) . See sec . 152 (c ) (1),(B) A qualifying relative must ,satisfy four requirements afor athe taxpayer to qualify for the deduction. See sec. 152(d) (1') (A) (D) . The two pertinent requirements are that othe taxpayer niust provide over oneshalf of the individual' s support for the taxable year and .the individual must not be a qualifying child ož the taxpayer.or of any other taxpayer for the taxableayear. Sec. 152 (d) (1) (C) and (D) . Mr. Briscoe did not substantiate the amount of J.B.'s support from- all sources in 2007. . Mr. Briscoe also didy not establish that J-.B. was anot a qualifying child of -any other 3 Respondent concedes that Mr. Briscoe meets the relationship requirement, requirement . the age recjuirement, "ahd the support - 5 - taxpayer for 2007 (e.g., Ms. ICeaser). J.BC, therefore, is not Mr. Briscoe's qualifying relátive under section 152(d). i Section 152(e) (1), however, provides a special rule whereby a noncustodial parent may be entitled to claim a dependency exemption deduction for a child notwithstanding the residency requirement of section -152(c) (1) (B), the-support requirement of section 152(d) (1 (C), and the so-called tie-breaking rule of section 152(c) (4 . A child will"be treated as the noncustodial parent's qualify:.ng child or qualifying relative if five requirements-are met. See sec. 152(e) (1) and (2). The relevant requirements here are that the custodial parent sign a áritten declaration, in auch manner and form as the Secretary-may prescribe, that the custodial parent will not claim the 'child as a dependent and that -the noncustodial parent attach thét declaration to the noncustodial parent's return for the taxable year. Sec. 152(0)'(2) (A) and (B) . The Internal. Revenue'Ser ice issued Forma8332 in ožder to standardize the uritten declaration required by section 152(e). See, e.g. / Chambdrlain v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-178. Form 8332 requires a taxpayer to furnish: (1)- The name of the child; (2) the n me and Socia Security number of the noncustodial parent claiming the dependency exemption deduction; (3) the, Social Security number of the custodial parent; (4) the signature~ of the custodial parent; (5) the date of the custodial - 6 - parent's signature; and (6) the year(s) for whiäh the'claims were e released. See .Miller v. Commissionei-, 114 T.Ci -184, 190 (2000), affd. on another ground sub nom. Loveioy v. Commiåsioner, 293 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2002) . »Although taxpayersrareinot required to use Formä8332, , any other written adeclaration executed "by 'the custodial parent must conform to the substance of Form 8332.* See .;i._st at 189. The :general instructions for Form'8332 state that'a divorce decree may be attached to the Form 1040 instead of Form 8332 if the ,decree states all of the -items listed above, 4 specifically the years for which the claim isareleased -and the - custodial parent's Social Security enumber." Section 152(e) 3 allows a -noncustodial parent to claim the dependencysexemption - deduction,only when that parent attaches a- valid Form 8332 or,its equivalent to a Federal income tax return for the taxable year , for whiah she or she ,claims the dependency exemption deduction. See Paulson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-560. Petitioners did not attach Form 8332 to their Form 1040; instead, they 'attached a copy of the support order.a The support order does not contain the years sto which the order applies or - 4 The instructions permit this procedure only for divorce decrees that went intó effect after 1984 and before 2009. 4 The instructions seem to imply that the cust-odial" parent' s Social Security number can be added to the cover page , and need not'lïave been part 'of the oî^iginal décree . However, this distinction is immaterial as the custodial parent' s Social Security number did not appear in anything petitioner" attaclied te> his Form 1040 . - 7 - Ms. Ceaser's Social Security umber. The support order, therefore, does r.ot conform to the substance of Form 8332 or satisfy the requirements of section 152(e) (2). See Miller v. Commissioner, supra at 191-192 (order not containing custodial parent's signature or Social Security number did not substantially conform to Formp8332);- White v./ Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-438 (letter failing.to state the years for which the claim to the exemption was released and not containing the parents' Social Security numbers did not substantially conform to Form 8332). Accordingly, we find tha J.B. is not treated as Mr. Briscoe's qualifying child or qualifying relative under section 152(e), and therefore petitioners are not entitled to the dependency exemption deduction for J.B. III. Child Tax Credit A taxpayer m y claim a child tax credit for "each qualifying child". Sec. 24( ). A qualifying child for purposes of section 24 is a "qualifyi g child" as defined in section 152(c) who has not attained the age of 17. Sec. 24(c) (1).. Because we have determined that J.B. is not Mr. Briscoe's qualifying child, it follows that petitioners are not entitled to the child tax credit for J.B. We are not unsympathetic to petitioners' position. We also realize that the statutory requirements may seem to work harsh - 8 - results to taxpayers, slich as Mr." Briscoe$ who are current in their child support obligations and eho are entitled" to alaim the deperidency exemption deductions or child tax ciedits under the terms of a child support order. However, we are bounct by the statute as written and the accompanying regulations when consistent therewith. Michaels v. Commissioner , 87 T . C. 412 14 7 (1986) ;' Brissett v. Commissioner, T .b. Memo . 2003 -310 . To refl'ect the foregoiiig Decision will be ente ed f or respondent .