Vasquez v. Comm'r
Opinion
PURSUANT TO
Decision will be entered for respondent.
ARMEN,
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 2007 Federal income tax of $1,850.
The issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled to a dependency exemption deduction and a child tax credit for his daughter.
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. We incorporate by reference the parties' stipulation of facts and accompanying exhibits. Petitioner resided in the State of California when the petition was filed.
Petitioner and Stacy Marie Kennedy (Ms. *162Kennedy) were married in 1996, and the couple had a daughter, GV, in 2000.2
In or about 2002 petitioner and Ms. Kennedy separated. Even though they have never formally divorced, they have lived apart from one another with minimal contact ever since.
When they separated, Ms. Kennedy took GV and moved to Wildomar, California, in Riverside County; petitioner remained in Fresno, where he continues to reside. Wildomar and Fresno are approximately 300 miles apart.
In 2005, the Superior Court in Riverside County awarded joint legal custody of GV to petitioner and Ms. Kennedy and physical custody of GV to Ms. Kennedy. The Superior Court also ordered petitioner to pay child support, which he has paid faithfully ever since. Provision was also made for visitation by petitioner.
In 2006, GV began attending elementary school in Riverside County.
During 2007, GV resided with petitioner in Fresno for approximately 103 days and with Ms. Kennedy in Wildomar, where GV attended school, for the balance of the year. Together, petitioner and Ms. Kennedy paid all, or virtually all, of the support for GV.
Petitioner timely *163filed a Federal income tax return for 2007. On his return, petitioner claimed a dependency exemption deduction and a child tax credit for GV. Petitioner did not attach—and Ms. Kennedy did not sign—a Form 8332, Release of Claim to Exemption for Child of Divorced or Separated Parents, releasing the claim to the dependency exemption deduction for GV.
In a notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to either a dependency exemption deduction or a child tax credit for his daughter. The present action then followed.
In general, a taxpayer may claim a dependency exemption deduction for each individual who is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer for the taxable year. Sec. 151(a), (c). Section 152(a) defines a dependent to include a qualifying child. A qualifying child must, inter alia, share the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the year in issue. Sec. 152(c)(1)(B).
During 2007, GV resided with petitioner in Fresno for approximately 103 days and with Ms. Kennedy in Wildomar for the balance of the year. *164Thus, for 2007 GV did not share the same principal place of abode as petitioner for more than one-half of the year. GV was not, therefore, the qualifying child of petitioner for that year within the meaning of section 152(c).
However, in the case of divorced or separated parents, special rules determine which parent may claim a dependency exemption deduction for a dependent. Thus, section 152(e) provides in pertinent part as follows: SEC. 152(e). Special Rule for Divorced Parents, Etc.— (1) In general.—* * * if— (A) a child receives over one-half of the child's support during the calendar year from the child's parents— (i) who are divorced or legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance, (ii) who are separated under a written separation agreement, or (iii) who live apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calendar year, and— (B) such child is in the custody of 1 or both of the child's parents for more than one-half of the calendar year, such child shall be treated as being the qualifying child or qualifying relative of the noncustodial parent for a calendar year if the requirements described in paragraph (2) or (3) are met.4 (2) Exception where custodial parent
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2010 T.C. Summary Opinion 124 (Vasquez v. Comm'r) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.