- 10 -
Petitioner argues that the Social Security benefits received
by her mother cannot be attributed solely to her support because,
petitioner contends, the benefits were not used exclusively for
Geneva's support because petitioner's brothers routinely used
Geneva's Social Security benefits for their own support. Thus,
petitioner argues, only a portion of the Social Security benefits
should be considered to have supported Geneva each year.
Despite the fact that Geneva's Social Security benefits may
have been used by petitioner's brothers and, thus, may have been
used for their support, the Court must reject petitioner's
contention that such amounts used to support others are not to be
considered as support for the dependent in question. Section
1.152-1(a)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs., provides that, in determining
whether an individual received over half of his support from the
taxpayer, "there shall be taken into account the amount of
support received from the taxpayer as compared to the entire
amount of support which the individual received from all sources,
including support which the individual himself supplied." The
Court has interpreted this regulation to mean:
any amount contributed to a common family fund by a
particular member of the household is deemed to have
been supplied in full for his support when such amount
is less than his aliquot share of the entire fund.
* * * Simply because the total cost of support for all
family members is prorated does not justify a proration
of a contributing member's earnings. Such an
interpretation would produce an illogical and
unrealistic result since it would then be possible for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011