Court Opinion

ID: 9931350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 20:01:45.283779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:24.669311
License: Public Domain

United States Tax Court

                           T.C. Memo. 2024-20

                           SUSAN D. TURNER,
                               Petitioner

                                    v.

            COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
                        Respondent

                               __________

Docket No. 19487-22.                             Filed February 8, 2024.

                               __________

Susan D. Turner, pro se.

Alexander R. Roche and Abigail J. Engelhart, for respondent.

       MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

       CARLUZZO, Chief Special Trial Judge: In a notice of deficiency
(notice) dated June 27, 2022, respondent determined a deficiency in
petitioner’s 2020 federal income tax.

      The issues for decision are whether petitioner (1) is entitled to an
earned income tax credit and (2) qualifies for head of household filing
status.

                           FINDINGS OF FACT

      Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. When
the Petition was filed, petitioner resided in Illinois.

                            Served 02/08/24
                                            2

[*2] Petitioner is the grandmother of A.V. 1 and has been A.V.’s court
appointed guardian since 2007. A.V. was not employed during 2020.
Throughout the year in issue, petitioner helped A.V. pay for rent, phone
bills, clothing, food, transportation, and other personal expenses.

      As of the close of 2020, petitioner was not married and A.V. was
a minor. For most of the year, A.V. lived at a friend’s house. A.V. lived
with petitioner for approximately 60 days during 2020.

       As relevant here, on her 2020 federal income tax return petitioner
claimed (1) an earned income credit computed as though A.V. was her
qualifying child and (2) the standard deduction applicable to an
individual who qualifies as a head of household.

       In the notice respondent (1) disallowed the earned income credit
and (2) changed petitioner’s filing status from head of household to
single and adjusted the standard deduction accordingly.

                                      OPINION

       In general, the Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of
deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of
proving that the determinations are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).

       As we have observed in countless opinions, deductions and credits
are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of
proving entitlement to any claimed deduction or credit. Rule 142(a);
INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial
Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).

I.      Earned Income Credit

       Petitioner claimed an earned income credit as an eligible
individual with a qualifying child. According to petitioner, A.V. was her
qualifying child. According to respondent, petitioner does not have a
qualifying child within the meaning of section 32(c)(1)(A)(i) and (3), and
she is not entitled to the credit as claimed.

        1 Minor children are not identified by name in documents that are issued by

the Court and available for public inspection; instead we refer to them by their initials.
See Rule 27(a)(3). Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal
Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.), in effect at all relevant times, and Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                          3

[*3] Subject to various conditions and limitations, an eligible
individual is entitled to an earned income credit. I.R.C. § 32(a). An
“eligible individual” includes an individual who has a qualifying child
for that tax year. I.R.C. § 32(c)(1)(A)(i). A qualifying child is defined in
section 32(c)(3)(A) to mean “a qualifying child of the taxpayer (as defined
in section 152(c), determined without regard to paragraph (1)(D) thereof
and section 152(e)).”

       In general, an individual may be treated as the qualifying child of
a taxpayer if the individual (1) is a child of the taxpayer or descendant
of such a child; (2) has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer
for more than one-half of such taxable year; (3) meets certain age
requirements; and (4) has not provided over one-half of such individual’s
own support for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the
taxpayer begins. I.R.C. § 152(c)(1)–(3).

         A.V. does not fit the definition of a qualifying child under section
152(c) because, as noted above, A.V. and petitioner did not share the
same principal place of abode for more than one-half of the year.
Petitioner does not suggest that any individual other than A.V. fits the
definition of her qualifying child. It follows that petitioner is not entitled
to an earned income credit as an eligible individual with a qualifying
child. 2

II.    Head of Household

        The amount of the standard deduction depends on the taxpayer’s
filing status. I.R.C. § 63(c)(2), (4). Section 63(c)(2)(B) provides a specific
standard deduction for an individual who qualifies as a head of
household under section 2(b).

       As relevant here, an unmarried individual will qualify as a head
of household if the individual maintains as the individual’s home a
household that is the principal place of abode, for at least one-half of the
year, of (1) a qualifying child as defined under section 152(c) or (2) any
other person who is a dependent of the taxpayer, if the taxpayer is
entitled to a deduction for the taxable year for such person under
section 151. I.R.C. § 2(b)(1).

        2 From what has been submitted, it does not appear that petitioner is entitled

to an earned income credit applicable to an eligible individual without a qualifying
child, but we make no finding on the point. If the parties agree that she is, then they
can reflect that allowance in their Rule 155 computations.
                                   4

[*4] Petitioner’s home was not the principal place of abode for more
than one half of 2020 of a qualifying child or any other person who might
qualify as petitioner’s dependent. That being so, petitioner is not
entitled to head of household filing status for 2020. Respondent properly
changed her filing status from head of household to single and adjusted
the standard deduction accordingly.

      To reflect the foregoing,

      Decision will be entered under Rule 155.