- 7 -
the calendar year. Sec. 152(e)(2); Miller v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 184 (2000).
Petitioner cannot claim a dependency exemption for D.C.
under section 152(e)(1) because D.C. is not petitioner’s child.
See sec. 152(b)(2). Even if we were to assume in the instant
case that over half of H.C.’s support came from her parents,
petitioner would still have to show that he had custody of H.C.
for the greater portion of the year because there is no evidence
that petitioner filed a Form 8332 or similar written declaration
signed by Ms. Campbell stating that she would not claim H.C. as
dependent.
In the instant case petitioner testified that he had custody
of H.C. on weekends and during the summer but did not provide
specific dates. However, Ms. Campbell represented to the
Jacksonville Housing Authority and the Jacksonville Department of
Children and Families that H.C. and D.C. lived with her, enabling
her to receive subsidized housing, food stamps, Medicaid, and
Social Security benefits totaling approximately $1,635 per month.
Ms. Campbell testified at trial, however, that H.C. lived with
both her and petitioner but that H.C. spent most of the summer
with petitioner. Ms. Campbell further testified that she and
petitioner’s mother watched H.C. during the day while petitioner
was working. Petitioner did not call his mother as a witness.
Given the vague, conflicting, and improbable evidence in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011