ROBB v. COMMISSIONER

2004 T.C. Summary Opinion 129, 2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 74
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedSeptember 16, 2004
DocketNo. 17555-03S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2004 T.C. Summary Opinion 129 (ROBB 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
ROBB v. COMMISSIONER, 2004 T.C. Summary Opinion 129, 2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 74 (tax 2004).

Opinion

JEFFREY SCOTT AND NANCY J. ROBB, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ROBB v. COMMISSIONER
No. 17555-03S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2004-129; 2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 74;
September 16, 2004, Filed

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

Jeffrey Scott Robb, pro se.
Mary Ann Waters, for respondent.
Powell, Carleton D.

Powell, Carleton D.

POWELL, 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.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 $ 3,592 in petitioners' 2001 Federal income tax. The issues are (1) whether petitioners are entitled to claim dependency exemption deductions for petitioner Jeffrey Scott Robb's (hereinafter petitioner) children from a former marriage under section 151, and (2) whether petitioners are entitled to claim child tax*75 credits for two of the children under section 24. Petitioners resided in Woodbridge, Virginia, at the time the petition was filed.

             Background

The facts are undisputed and may be summarized as follows. Petitioner and Lorreta Delaney (Loretta) were divorced in 1994. Together they had four children. In 2001, three of the four children were minors. Petitioner and Loretta entered into a written separation agreement with addendums. In the final divorce decree it is noted that the Circuit Court of Stafford County "neither affirms, ratifies nor incorporates" the agreement or its addendums into the final divorce decree. The agreement, dated September 29, 1992, stated: "Provided the Husband is current in his obligations to pay child support, he may have the children's tax exemptions for both state and federal tax returns." The parties stipulated that petitioner was current in his obligation to pay child support during 2001. Loretta was the custodial parent of the children within the meaning of section 151(e)(1).

On their 2001 Federal income tax return, petitioners claimed dependency exemption deductions, inter alia, for three of petitioner's children*76 from his marriage to Loretta and child tax credits for two of those children. Loretta also claimed dependency exemption deductions for the three children. Respondent disallowed the dependency exemption deductions and the child tax credits claimed by petitioners.

             Discussion

1. Dependency Exemptions

Sections 151 and 152provide that a taxpayer is entitled to deduct an exemption for a dependent if the taxpayer provides over half of the support for the dependent. The pre-1985 version of the dependency exemption deduction as it applied to the children of divorced or separated parents was "often subjective and [presented] difficult problems of proof and substantiation". H. Rept. 98-432 (Part II), at 1498 (1984). In order to provide more certainty, Congress amended section 152(e) to "[allow] the custodial spouse the exemption unless that spouse waives his or her right to claim the exemption. Thus, dependency disputes between parents will be resolved without the involvement of the Internal Revenue Service." Id. at 1499.

Under section 152(e)(1), in the case of a minor dependent whose parents are divorced or separated and together provide over*77 half of the support for the minor dependent, the parent having custody for a greater portion of the calendar year ("custodial parent") generally shall be treated as providing over half of the support for the minor dependent. A noncustodial parent may be treated as providing over half of the support for the minor dependent if the requirements of section 152(e)(2) are satisfied.

Section 152(e)(2) provides:

     (2) Exception where custodial parent releases claim to

   exemption for the year. -- A child * * * shall be treated as

   having received over half of his support during a calendar year

   from the noncustodial parent if --

        (A) the custodial parent signs a written declaration

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

Related

Lovejoy v. Commissioner
293 F.3d 1208 (Tenth Circuit, 2002)
Peterson Marital Trust v. Commissioner
102 T.C. No. 38 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Miller v. Commissioner
114 T.C. No. 13 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
Truck & Equipment Corp. v. Commissioner
98 T.C. No. 12 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2004 T.C. Summary Opinion 129, 2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robb-v-commissioner-tax-2004.