- 9 -
the amount of the deficiency, it would appear that the change in
filing status from head-of-household to married filing separately
has no tax effect.9 Accordingly, we need not decide whether
respondent erred in changing petitioner’s filing status because
our decision would not have any effect on the deficiency in
dispute. See LTV Corp. v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 589, 594-595
(1975); Cohen v. Commissioner, 20 B.T.A. 647, 648 (1930) (it is
not the duty of the Court to decide abstract or academic
questions). However, we observe that a taxpayer must be
unmarried in order to qualify as a head of a household, sec.
2(b)(1), and that a taxpayer will be treated as not married if
the taxpayer is so treated under section 7703(b). See sec. 2(c).
Accordingly, a married taxpayer who does not come within the
scope of section 7703(b) may not file as a head of a household.
Conclusion
We sustain the deficiency as determined by respondent in the
notice of deficiency. We do so because the law compels it.
However, we do so without enthusiasm. As we observed at trial,
petitioner strikes us as a conscientious taxpayer who takes her
Federal tax responsibilities seriously. Unfortunately, she did
9 It may be that respondent underdetermined the amount of
the deficiency in tax. However, we do not consider such
possibility because respondent never asserted any claim for an
increased deficiency. See sec. 6214(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011