WHITE v. COMMISSIONER
Opinion
*87 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
POWELL, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of
Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 3,748 in petitioner's 2001 Federal income tax. The issue is whether petitioner is entitled to an earned income credit in the same amount. Petitioner resided in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at the time she filed her petition.
The relevant facts and discussion of law are combined because of the nature of the resolution of the issue. 2
*89 During 2001, petitioner was married within the meaning of
Mr. White testified that he moved out of the 4505 residence in 1998 and returned in November 2001. He further testified that he used the filing status of "single" for his 2001 tax return. 3
The evidence is not in dispute that Mr. White lived in the 4505 residence with petitioner during the last 2 months of 2001. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to claim the earned income credit.
Reviewed and adopted as*90 the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for respondent.
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.↩
2. While petitioner's marital status is a factual issue, sec. 7491, concerning burden of proof, has no bearing on this case.↩
3. It is not disputed that, if petitioner and Mr. White had filed a joint return, their combined income would have exceeded the income requirements for the credit. See
sec. 32(b)↩ .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 140 (WHITE v. COMMISSIONER) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.