- 6 -
that he could not use the telephone or kitchen without
permission. Other than the $175 per month allegedly paid,
petitioner incurred no additional expenditures for utilities,
repairs or any other household expenses. We find that the one
room allegedly lived in by petitioner and Fatimah in the two-
bedroom apartment owned by Fatimah's mother, without use of a
kitchen or telephone, does not constitute a separate household.
Additionally, petitioner failed to prove that he paid $175 a
month or, if paid, that it constituted more than half the cost of
maintaining a household as his home. Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-
1(a), Income Tax Regs. Ms. Cleckley, Fatimah's mother, was the
owner of the two-bedroom apartment. Ms. Cleckley apparently paid
all expenses of maintaining the household to which petitioner
allegedly contributed only $175 per month.
Based on the record, we find that petitioner has failed to
satisfy his burden of proof. Rule 142(a). We are unconvinced
that petitioner provided more than half of the cost of
maintaining a principal place of abode for his daughter.
Accordingly respondent is sustained on this issue.
The second issue for decision is whether petitioner is
entitled to a credit for child and dependent care in the amount
of $560.
On petitioner's 1992 Federal return, he claimed a credit
under section 21 for child and dependent care expenses in the
amount of $560. Pursuant to section 21(a)(1), petitioner is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011