- 7 -
of his support during the calendar year from divorced parents,
and such child is in the custody of one or both parents for more
than one-half of the calendar year, then such child is treated
for purposes of section 152(a) as receiving over half his support
from the parent having custody for a greater portion of the
calendar year. For purposes of section 152(e), “custody” in a
split placement arrangement is deemed to be with the parent who
has physical custody of the child for the greater portion of the
calendar year. Sec. 1.152-4(b), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner testified that in 1997 and 1998 he strictly
complied with the custody order, which provided for equal shared
placement of the children between petitioner and Ms. Brittingham.
However, petitioner testified that Adam and Jordan spent more
time at Ms. Brittingham’s residence in the “summertime because
they didn’t want to stay with a baby sitter.” Petitioner’s
testimony is contradictory as to the amount of time petitioner
had physical custody of Adam and Jordan in 1997 and 1998. Since
neither of petitioner’s contradicting statements supports the
position that petitioner had physical custody of Adam and Jordan
for a greater portion of 1997 and 1998 than did Ms. Brittingham,
we need not analyze the credibility of petitioner’s testimony on
this issue.
Assuming, arguendo, that the custody order was strictly
followed in every respect in 1997 and 1998, Adam and Jordan would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011