Gentry v. Comm'r

2013 T.C. Memo. 16, 105 T.C.M. 1113, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 19
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 16, 2013
DocketDocket No. 19248-11
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2013 T.C. Memo. 16 (Gentry 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
Gentry v. Comm'r, 2013 T.C. Memo. 16, 105 T.C.M. 1113, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 19 (tax 2013).

Opinion

LA TASHIA GENTRY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Gentry v. Comm'r
Docket No. 19248-11
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2013-16; 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 19; 105 T.C.M. (CCH) 1113;
January 16, 2013, Filed
*19

Decision will be entered for respondent for the reduced deficiency of $1,950.

La Tashia Gentry, Pro se.
William D. Richard, for respondent.
COHEN, Judge.

COHEN
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,000 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 2008. After a concession by respondent, the issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to child tax credits for two minor cousins who live with her and are supported by her. Unless otherwise *17 indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for the year in issue.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. Petitioner resided in Washington when she filed the petition. During 2008, petitioner cared for two children of her first cousin as if they were her own. They resided with her, and she acted as their guardian. They were not, however, adopted by her or placed in her home as foster children.

On her 2008 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, petitioner claimed the two children of her first cousin as dependents and claimed child tax credits of $1,950. Respondent disallowed the *20 claims but has now conceded that petitioner is entitled to the dependency exemption deductions.

OPINION

The Internal Revenue Code allows as a deduction an exemption for each dependent of a taxpayer in computing taxable income. Sec. 151(c). Section 152(a) defines a dependent as a qualifying child or a qualifying relative of the taxpayer. In addition to other requirements, a qualifying child must be the taxpayer's child, brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister, or a descendant of such *18 relatives. Sec. 152(c)(2). A qualifying relative, however, may be an individual who, for the year in issue, has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer's household, and for whom the taxpayer provides over one-half of the support. Sec. 152(d)(1)(C), (2)(H).

Section 24(a) provides that a credit against income tax is allowed with respect to each qualifying child of the taxpayer in an amount equal to $1,000. Under section 24(b)(1), the section 24(a) credit is reduced by $50 for each $1,000 (or fraction thereof) by which the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income exceeds the threshold amount specified in section 24(b)(2). Thus petitioner's claimed child tax credit *21 for her two cousins was determined to be $1,950, which is the amount now in dispute.

Because petitioner's cousins are qualifying relatives for purposes of section 152(d), she is entitled to the dependency exemption deductions claimed on her tax return. Respondent now concedes that the deficiency, originally determined to be $3,000, should be reduced. However, petitioner's cousins do not satisfy the definition of qualifying child that determines eligibility for the child tax credits under section 24(a).

Although the distinction may seem arbitrary or unfair to petitioner, Congress has delineated the specific qualifications for the tax benefits in issue *19 here. The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-311, sec. 201, 118 Stat. at 1169, amended section 152 to establish a uniform definition of child, including a definition of a qualifying child in section 152(c).

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

Related

Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States
301 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court, 1937)
Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington
461 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 T.C. Memo. 16, 105 T.C.M. 1113, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gentry-v-commr-tax-2013.