Byles v. Comm'r

2010 T.C. Summary Opinion 25, 2010 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 23
United States Tax Court·Decided March 2, 2010·No. No. 19726-08S·Unpublished

Opinion

MAURICE BYLES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Byles v. Comm'r
No. 19726-08S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-25; 2010 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 23;
March 2, 2010, Filed

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

*23
Maurice Byles, Pro se.
Michael T. Shelton, for respondent.
Dean, John F.

JOHN F. DEAN

DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent 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 Procedure.

For 2006 respondent determined a deficiency of $ 3,777 in petitioner's Federal income tax. The issues for decision are whether: (1) Petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption deductions for his sister and his two nephews; (2) petitioner is entitled to head of household filing status; and (3) petitioner is entitled to an earned income credit.

Background

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference. When petitioner filed his petition, he resided in Illinois.

For 2006 petitioner reported income *24of $ 48,511 on Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and claimed: (1) Dependency exemption deductions for his sister and his two nephews; (2) head of household filing status; and (3) the earned income credit.

From January through August 2006 petitioner's sister and her two children, petitioner's nephews, lived with him. For 2006 petitioner's sister also claimed dependency exemption deductions for her two children on her Federal income tax return.

Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency: (1) Disallowing petitioner's claimed dependency exemption deductions for his sister and his two nephews and the earned income credit; and (2) changing petitioner's filing status from head of household to single.

DiscussionI. Burden of Proof

Generally, the Commissioner's determinations are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous. 1*25 Rule 142(a); see INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).

Deductions and credits are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he or she is entitled to any deduction or credit claimed. Rule 142(a); Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 493 (1940); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934). Likewise, the taxpayer is obliged to demonstrate entitlement to an advantageous filing status, such as head of household. Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-229.

II. Dependency Exemption DeductionA. Petitioner's Nephews

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to claim two dependency exemption deductions for his nephews in 2006 because they were his qualifying children.

A taxpayer is entitled to claim a dependency exemption deduction only if the claimed dependent is a "qualifying child" or a "qualifying relative" as defined under section 152(c) and (d). Secs. 151(c), 152(a). A qualifying child is defined as the taxpayer's child, brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister, or a descendant of any of them. Sec. 152(c)(1) and (2).

In addition, section 152(c) provides that an individual is a qualifying child of the taxpayer only if: (1) The individual had the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer *26for more than one-half of the taxable year; (2) the i

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Byles v. Comm'r, 2010 T.C. Summary Opinion 25, 2010 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 23 (tax 2010).

2010 T.C. Summary Opinion 25 (Byles v. Comm'r) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1933)
New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering
292 U.S. 435 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Deputy, Administratrix v. Du Pont
308 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Indopco, Inc. v. Commissioner
503 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Smith v. Comm'r
2008 T.C. Memo. 229 (U.S. Tax Court, 2008)