Court Opinion

ID: 4621714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-21 02:45:14.880435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:56:02.945654
License: Public Domain

MARIA (SANDRITTER) EMANUELSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RespondentEmanuelson v. CommissionerDocket No. 3214-73.United States Tax CourtT.C. Memo 1976-9; 1976 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 396; 35 T.C.M. (CCH) 27; T.C.M. (RIA) 760009; January 8, 1976, Filed *396  Maria (Sandritter) Emanuelson, pro se. Michael A. Zimmerman, for the respondent.  RAUMMEMORANDUM OPINION RAUM, Judge: The Commissioner determined a $153 deficiency in petitioner's 1969 income tax. The deficiency was based upon his disallowance of a dependency exemption which petitioner had claimed in respect of her sister Priscilla as well as his disapproval of her use of head of household rates in computing the tax. The parties have filed a stipulation of facts, which, together with accompanying exhibits, is incorporated herein by this reference. Other facts set forth herein are found upon the basis of evidence presented at the hearing. At the time of trial both matters -- dependency exemption for Priscilla and head of household status -- were in dispute. After submission of the case, however, respondent's counsel notified the Court that he was conceding the head of household issue, thereby leaving in dispute only the question whether petitioner was entitled to a dependency deduction for her sister Priscilla. 1The parties have*397  stipulated that Priscilla earned more than $600 in 1969. She was a high school student during most of the year, but worked during the months of September through December when she earned approximately $1,500. This fact is fatal to the claim of a dependency exemption for Priscilla. Even assuming that Priscilla was otherwise petitioner's dependent, the exemption is precluded by the specific language of section 151(e)(1)(A) of the 1954 Code. Those provisions, as they applied to the year 1969, granted a $600 exemption for each dependent "whose gross income for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins is less than $600 * * *". 2 There are no other provisions in the statute that could furnish a basis for the claimed exemption. Notwithstanding petitioner's complaint about the alleged unfairness of the result, the statute is clear, and we have no choice but to hold on this record that the Commissioner correctly disallowed the exemption. *398 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.Footnotes1. The head of household status turned upon dependency exemptions for certain members of the family other than Priscilla.↩2. Other provisions, which did not fix a $600 limit on the gross income of the dependent, are applicable in the case of a taxpayer's child↩ who is a student or who is under 19 years of age at the close of the year. Section 151(e)(1)(B).