Swafford v. Comm'r
This text of 2009 T.C. Summary Opinion 82 (Swafford 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.
Opinion
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
DEAN,
Respondent determined a $ 1,825 deficiency in petitioners' 2006 Federal income tax. The issues for decision are whether petitioners are entitled to a dependency exemption deduction and a child tax credit for D.V. 1
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by reference. When the petition was filed, petitioners resided *83 in Ohio.
Ishmial D. Swafford (Mr. Swafford) fathered a child with Laura A. Vogel (Ms. Vogel). An agreed entry was filed with an Ohio State court, requiring Mr. Swafford to make certain child support payments. The agreed entry also provides that Mr. Swafford is entitled to claim D.V. as a dependent for Federal and State tax purposes in "even numbered years" if his child support payments are "current in full"; and if not, then Ms. Vogel is entitled to claim D.V. It sets forth Ms. Vogel's and Mr. Swafford's names and Social Security numbers. But Ms. Vogel did not sign the agreed entry. Rather, it was signed by Michael P. Kelly, "Attorney for [Mr. Swafford]"; Gayle Walker, Attorney for State of Ohio; John C. Korfhagen, Referee; and Stephanie Wyler, Judge.
Mr. Swafford's child support payments were "current in full" in 2006. Petitioners, therefore, claimed a dependency exemption deduction and a child tax credit for D.V. on their 2006 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Respondent, however, sent petitioners a notice of deficiency in which he disallowed the dependency exemption deduction and the child tax credit. Petitioners did not attach to their 2006 Form 1040 either Form 8332, *84 Release of Claim to Exemption for Child of Divorced or Separated Parents, or the agreed entry. Instead, petitioners provided respondent with a copy of the agreed entry in response to the notice of deficiency.
I. Burden of Proof
The Commissioner's determinations 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);
Taxpayers may claim dependency exemption deductions for their dependents (as defined in section 152). Sec. 151(c). The term "dependent" means a qualifying child 2*86 or qualifying relative. 3 Sec. 152(a). But section 152(e)(1), in pertinent part, provides a general rule that limits the dependency exemption deduction as *85 follows: if the child received over one-half of his support during the calendar year from his parents who live apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calendar year and the child is in the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the calendar year, then the child is treated as the qualifying child or qualifying relative of the noncustodial parent if certain requirements are met. 4 The requirements are met if: (1) The custodial parent signs a written declaration (in such manner and form as the Secretary may prescribe) that the custodial parent will not claim the child as a dependent for the taxable year; and (2) the noncustodial parent attaches the written declaration to the noncustodial parent's return for the taxable year. Sec. 152(e)(2);
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2009 T.C. Summary Opinion 82, 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swafford-v-commr-tax-2009.