Carito v. Commissioner

54 T.C. 1614, 1970 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 80
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedAugust 13, 1970
DocketDocket No. 5360-68
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 54 T.C. 1614 (Carito v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carito v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1614, 1970 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 80 (tax 1970).

Opinion

OPINION

Section 151 of the Internal Bevenue Code of 19541 provides for the deduction of an exemption of $600 for a dependent of the taxpayer whose income or the calendar year in which the taxable years of the taxpayer begins is less than $600. Section 152 of the Code2 provides that the term “dependent” includes the mother of the taxpayer if over half of her support for such taxable year is received from the taxpayer.

The petitioner contends that, although she reported in her return that her mother had gross income of $600, she was in error in so doing, since one of the monthly pension checks was in the amount of $42 instead of the usual $50, and that in reality her mother had gross income for the taxable year 1965 of only $592. We think it clear, however, that since the petitioner’s mother was entitled to a pension of $600 for the year, the full $600 must be considered as gross income to her. It appears that she authorized the withholding of $8 from the January 1965 check to satisfy a death benefit assessment. This, however, did not prevent the full amount of the pension for the month of January from constituting gross income to her. In substance, the result was the same as if she had actually received the full amount of $50 and had then paid $8 thereof to meet such assessment. In addition, the evidence indicates that the petitioner’s mother derived interest income during the year 1965.3 Since the mother did not have gross income of less than $600, the petitioner is not entitled to a deduction for a dependency exemption on her account.

Section 1(b) (2) of the Code4 defines a head of household as an individual who maintains as his home a household which constitutes for the taxable year the principal place of abode, as a member of such household, of any person who is a dependent of the taxpayer (which would include the mother of a taxpayer), but only if the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the taxable year for such person under section 151. Since, as we have held above, the petitioner is not entitled to a deduction for her mother under section 151, she does not qualify as a head of household under section. 1(b) (2) of the Code and is therefore not entitled to the special tax rate provided by section 1(b) (1) of the Code for heads of households.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

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

Related

Ruch v. Commissioner
1982 T.C. Memo. 493 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)
Pozgar v. Commissioner
1980 T.C. Memo. 451 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Santoro v. Commissioner
1975 T.C. Memo. 152 (U.S. Tax Court, 1975)
Nordstrom v. Commissioner
1971 T.C. Memo. 20 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Carito v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 1614 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 T.C. 1614, 1970 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carito-v-commissioner-tax-1970.