Finnegan v. Comm'r

2007 T.C. Summary Opinion 176, 2007 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 183
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedOctober 22, 2007
DocketNo. 23643-05S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2007 T.C. Summary Opinion 176 (Finnegan 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
Finnegan v. Comm'r, 2007 T.C. Summary Opinion 176, 2007 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 183 (tax 2007).

Opinion

SHAWN A. FINNEGAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Finnegan v. Comm'r
No. 23643-05S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-176; 2007 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 183;
October 22, 2007, Filed

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

*183
Shawn A. Finnegan, pro se.
Mark J. Miller and Eric Pearson (specially recognized), for respondent.
Goldberg, Stanley J.

STANLEY J. GOLDBERG

GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time 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.

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the year 2003 in the amount of $ 1,363. The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to claim a dependency exemption and a child tax credit for the taxable year 2003, pursuant to sections 151 and 24, respectively.

BACKGROUND

The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Reedsburg, Wisconsin.

Petitioner is employed as a police officer with the *184 Sauk County, Wisconsin, Sheriff's Office. Petitioner was involved in a relationship with Jessica K. Dykstra for an unspecified period of time prior to 1997. They were never married. In 1997, Ms. Dykstra gave birth to a male child, M.F. 1

In 2000, Ms. Dykstra initiated a paternity action against petitioner in the Circuit Court, Family Court Branch, Columbia County, Wisconsin (Family Court). As part of that action, the Family Court adjudged petitioner to be the father of M.F., according to his admission of paternity in open court. Pursuant to a Judgment on Default (judgment) entered against Ms. Dykstra, the Family Court ordered that with respect to the issue of the dependency exemption for M.F., petitioner be awarded the tax dependency exemption for M.F., provided that he was in compliance with his obligation to maintain health insurance for the child and current in his child support payments, as provided under the judgment.

During all taxable years since the child's birth, including the taxable year in issue, M.F. has resided with Ms. Dykstra. Petitioner resides approximately 1 hour away from M.F. and has parenting time with him *185 approximately once or twice a month.

Petitioner paid $ 4,852.26 in child support to Ms. Dykstra in 2003. This total comports with the amount that petitioner was ordered to pay in the underlying judgment.

On his 2003 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed the dependency exemption deduction and a child tax credit with respect to and for M.F. In the notice of deficiency, respondent explained that he was disallowing petitioner's claimed exemption for M.F. on the grounds that another taxpayer had also claimed the dependency exemption for M.F. for the 2003 taxable year. Accordingly, respondent disallowed the exemption with respect to M.F. and correspondingly disallowed petitioner's claimed child tax credit.

Subsequent to his receiving the notice of deficiency, petitioner was made aware of Form 8332, Release of Claim to Exemption for Child of Divorced or Separated Parents, and of the fact that this Form allows custodial parents to release a claim of dependency exemption for a child. Petitioner sent a copy of form 8332 to Ms. Dykstra, asking her to complete and sign it. At that time, petitioner believed that because he was in compliance with the terms of the aforementioned judgment during *186 the year in issue, and because he believed that he had contributed over one-half of M.F.'s total support for 2003, he should be entitled to claim the deduction. When Ms. Dykstra did not comply with petitioner's first request, he brought an enforcement action against Ms. Dykstra on February 20, 2006, and obtained a court order for her to sign the Form 8332 for the 2003 taxable year. Ms. Dykstra ultimately signed a Form 8332 on February 25, 2006, thereby agreeing not to claim an exemption for M.F. for the 2003 taxable year.

DISCUSSION

In general, the Commissioner's determination set forth in a notice of deficiency is presumed correct. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In pertinent part, Rule 142(a)(1) provides the general rule that the burden of proof shall be upon the taxpayer. In certain circumstances, however, if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the proper tax liability, section 7491

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)
Miller v. Commissioner
114 T.C. No. 13 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
King v. Comm'r
121 T.C. No. 12 (U.S. Tax Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2007 T.C. Summary Opinion 176, 2007 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finnegan-v-commr-tax-2007.