Moore v. Comm'r

2006 T.C. Summary Opinion 79, 2006 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 146
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 16, 2006
DocketNo. 20769-04S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2006 T.C. Summary Opinion 79 (Moore 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
Moore v. Comm'r, 2006 T.C. Summary Opinion 79, 2006 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 146 (tax 2006).

Opinion

JAMES LEE MOORE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Moore v. Comm'r
No. 20769-04S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-79; 2006 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 146;
May 16, 2006, Filed

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

James Lee Moore, Pro se.
Leonard T. Provenzale, 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 at the time the petition was filed. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.

Respondent determined for 2003 a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax of $ 2,650. The issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled to: (1) A dependency exemption deduction, (2) head of household filing status, 1 and (3) an earned income credit.

*147 Background

The stipulation of facts and exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioner resided in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

During 2003, petitioner paid $ 1,634.75 in child support for his daughter TH. 2 By letter dated May 28, 2004, the Department of Treasury notified petitioner that it had applied petitioner's 2003 tax refund of $ 250 toward his child support arrearage.

During 2003, petitioner was employed by Professional Drivers of GA, Inc., d.b.a. Personnel One, and Strategic Staffing, Inc. Petitioner also received unemployment compensation of $ 5,847 from the State of Florida in 2003.

Petitioner timely filed a Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2003, reporting wages of $ 6,452 and adjusted gross income of $ 12,299. Respondent issued to petitioner a statutory notice of deficiency determining that petitioner's filing status was single rather than*148 head of household. Respondent also determined that petitioner was not entitled to a dependency exemption deduction or an earned income credit, because he had failed to substantiate his claims.

Discussion

The Commissioner's determinations are presumed correct, and generally taxpayers bear the burden of proving otherwise. 3Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).

Head of Household

Petitioner claimed "head of household" filing status for 2003. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined petitioner's filing status to be single.

Section 1(b) imposes a special tax rate on individuals filing as "heads of households". "Head of household" is defined in section 2(b) as an unmarried individual*149 who maintained as his home a household which constitutes for more than one-half of the taxable year the principal place of abode for specific family members. See sec. 2(b)(1)(A)(i).

Petitioner testified that TH lived with him mostly on the weekends. During the weekdays, TH lived with her mother, because TH was in school. Petitioner is not entitled to "head of household" filing status since TH did not live with him for more than one-half of the year in 2003.

Dependency Exemption

Petitioner claimed a dependency exemption deduction for TH for 2003. Section 151(c)(1) allows a taxpayer to claim as a deduction an exemption for each qualifying dependent. A child of the taxpayer is considered a "dependent" so long as the child has not attained the age of 19 at the close of the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins, and more than half the child's support for the taxable year was received from the taxpayer. Secs. 151(c)(1)(B), 152(a)(1). The age limit is increased to 24 if the child was a student as defined by section 151(c)(4). Sec.

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2006 T.C. Summary Opinion 79, 2006 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-commr-tax-2006.