- 4 -
reported by petitioner, we conclude that petitioner did not pay
over half of the support for Dina and is not entitled to claim a
dependency exemption deduction for her.
EIC
Section 32(a) generally provides eligible individuals with
an EIC against their income tax liability. An “eligible
individual” is defined to include any individual who has a
“qualifying child”. Sec. 32(c)(1)(A)(i). A qualifying child
includes a daughter of the taxpayer, sec. 32(c)(3)(B)(i)(I), who
has the “same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more
than one-half of such taxable year”, sec. 32(c)(3)(A)(ii). We
assume that petitioner satisfies these requirements. Section
32(c)(1)(C) provides, however, that:
If 2 or more individuals would * * * be treated as
eligible individuals with respect to the same
qualifying child * * * only the individual with the
highest modified adjusted gross income for such taxable
years shall be treated as an eligible individual with
respect to such qualifying child.
It appears that both Ms. Duverger and petitioner would satisfy
the threshold requirements of being an eligible individual with
respect to Dina. But, Ms. Duverger has the highest modified
adjusted gross income. See sec. 32(c)(5). Petitioner,
therefore, is not entitled to claim an EIC with respect to Dina.
We have seen an increasing number of these cases where
there has been no discernible substance to the case other than an
inept attempt to take advantage of tax deductions and credits.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011