Colozza v. Comm'r

2006 T.C. Summary Opinion 97, 2006 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 116
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 27, 2006
DocketNo. 11748-04S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2006 T.C. Summary Opinion 97 (Colozza v. Comm'r) 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
Colozza v. Comm'r, 2006 T.C. Summary Opinion 97, 2006 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 116 (tax 2006).

Opinion

PAUL W. AND DEBBIE K. COLOZZA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Colozza v. Comm'r
No. 11748-04S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-97; 2006 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 116;
June 27, 2006, Filed

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

Paul W. Colozza, Pro se.
Charles M. Berlau, for respondent.
Couvillion, D. Irvin.

D. IRVIN COUVILLION

COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to section 7463 in effect when the petition was filed. 1 The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.

Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 1,047 in petitioners' Federal income tax for 2001.

The sole issue for decision is whether petitioners are entitled to a dependency exemption deduction under section 151 for their 2001 tax year for a child of Paul W. Colozza (petitioner) from a prior marriage.

Some of the facts were stipulated, and those facts, *117 with the annexed exhibits, are so found and are incorporated herein by reference. At the time their petition was filed, petitioners' legal residence was Kansas City, Missouri.

Petitioner was previously married to Janice Lee Henderson (Mrs. Henderson). One child was born of that marriage. Petitioner and Mrs. Henderson were later divorced prior to the year at issue. The divorce decree provided that the child's primary residence was with Mrs. Henderson. In 1999, the State court in which they were divorced issued a judgment modifying the divorce decree with regard to petitioner's support obligations for the child. That modification, as it pertains to the issue before this Court, provided:

That FATHER is awarded the tax exemption each year beginning in calendar year 1999 for the child if he makes his ordered child support (both current and arrearage) payments for that year, and MOTHER shall sign IRS Form 8332 or any other necessary documents by January 31 of the following year to ensure that FATHER receives the exemption.

There is no issue or claim that petitioner did not support the child for the year 2001 in accordance with the court decree. Prior to filing his joint Federal*118 income tax return for 2001 with his current spouse, petitioner contacted his former spouse to obtain her consent on Form 8332, Release of Claim to Exemption for Child of Divorced or Separated Parents, in order to enable him and his current spouse (a petitioner herein) to claim the dependency exemption for the child. Petitioner's former spouse refused to sign the Form 8332. Petitioners, accordingly, filed their joint return for 2001 and claimed the child as a dependent. Petitioners attached to their return an unsigned Form 8332 and also attached the pertinent page or pages of the court's decree quoted above regarding petitioner's entitlement to the dependency exemption deduction for the child. Respondent disallowed the claimed dependency exemption on the ground that petitioners "did not establish" that they were entitled to the deduction.

Generally, the determinations of the Commissioner in a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove that the determinations are in error. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933). 2

*119 Section 151(c) allows taxpayers to deduct an annual exemption amount for each "dependent" as defined in section 152. Under section 152(a), the term "dependent" means certain individuals, such as a son, daughter, stepson, or stepdaughter, "over half of whose support, for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins, was received from the taxpayer (or is treated under subsection (c) or (e) as received from the taxpayer)".

The support test in section 152(e)(1) applies if: (1) A child receives over half of his support during the calendar year from his parents; (2) the parents are divorced under a decree of divorce; and (3) such child is in the custody of one or both of his parents for more than one-half of the calendar year. If these requirements are satisfied, as in the present case, the "child shall be treated, for purposes of subsection (a), as receiving over half of his support during the calendar year from the parent having custody for a greater portion of the calendar year (* * * referred to as the 'custodial parent')", thus allowing the dependency exemption to be claimed by the "custodial parent". Sec. 152(e)(1).

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

Related

Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1933)
Commissioner v. Tower
327 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court, 1946)
Allen F. Kenfield v. United States
783 F.2d 966 (Tenth Circuit, 1986)
Peterson Marital Trust v. Commissioner
102 T.C. No. 38 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Truck & Equipment Corp. v. Commissioner
98 T.C. No. 12 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2006 T.C. Summary Opinion 97, 2006 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colozza-v-commr-tax-2006.