Michael Kevin Boltinghouse - Page 11
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 2007 > Michael Kevin Boltinghouse - Page 11
- 11 -
253. Petitioner is not required to provide the precise total
amount of support for his daughter but must at least provide
convincing evidence that he provided more than half of it in
2003. See Seraydar v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 756, 760 (1968).
Petitioner failed to maintain and provide sufficient records
establishing the total amount of support his daughter received in
2003 and the amount he provided. While petitioner testified at
trial that he paid tuition, child support, and insurance premiums
benefiting his daughter, he failed to provide any evidence to
substantiate how much these payments amounted to.4 Further,
petitioner did not offer any evidence as to how much support his
ex-wife provided, who paid his daughter’s other living expenses,
or whether his daughter was employed during 2003. Therefore, we
hold that petitioner failed to carry his burden of establishing
that he met the support test of section 152(a) so as to be
entitled to claim a dependency exemption deduction for his
daughter for 2003.
Petitioner also does not qualify for the deduction under the
special support test for children of divorced parents. Sec.
152(e)(1). Section 152(e)(1) applies only when the child is in
the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the
4 Petitioner’s argument that respondent never asked him for
substantiation is without merit. A taxpayer who fails for any
reason to substantiate a claimed deduction does so at his peril.
See Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 830 (1968), affd. 412
F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969).
Page: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Last modified: November 10, 2007