- 12 -
"filed" a substitute return under section 6020(b), in
which filing status has been "elected" by respondent.
To hold otherwise would be to cede jurisdiction as to
the determination of filing status in all cases where
no return has been filed to respondent for his absolute
and final determination. * * *
Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that petitioner is
not prohibited from claiming joint return status. Since the
parties agree that petitioner and his wife, Diane Dugan, intended
to file a joint return for the taxable year 1991 by the
submission of the amended return on March 30, 1995, petitioner
and his wife are entitled to joint filing status.
Issue 3. Dependency Exemptions
The question presented is whether petitioner is entitled to
dependency exemption deductions for his two daughters on the 1991
amended joint return. Respondent disallowed the exemptions on
the basis that petitioner had not demonstrated that his two
daughters resided with him and that he supported them.
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to the claimed deduction
because he provided all financial support for the children.
Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace, and
petitioner bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to any
deduction claimed. Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v.
Helvering, 292 U.S. 435 (1934). This includes the burden of
substantiation. Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 90 (1975),
affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011