- 4 -
nursing home was not documented by any bank records, canceled
checks, or other receipts. More is required by this Court than
petitioner's unsubstantiated, unverified, and undocumented
testimony. Wood v. Commissioner, 338 F.2d 602, 605 (9th Cir.
1964), affg. 41 T.C. 593 (1964); Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99
T.C. 202, 219-220 (1992); Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74,
77 (1986). Since petitioner did not prove that he paid for more
than half of his father's support in 1992, we hold that Mr.
Roberts was not petitioner's dependent in that year.
We now turn to the remaining issues which were contingent
upon our holding that Mr. Roberts was not petitioner's dependent
in 1992.
The second issue for decision is whether petitioner is
entitled to claim his father as an exemption. An individual is
allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income an additional
exemption for each dependent as defined in section 152. Sec.
151(c)(1). Since we have held that Mr. Roberts is not
petitioner's dependent under section 152, we further hold that
petitioner may not claim his father as an exemption because he
does not meet the threshold requirements under section 151(c)(1)
for the deduction.
The third issue for decision is whether petitioner is
entitled to claim head of household filing status for 1992.
"Head of household" is defined, in pertinent part, as an
unmarried individual who maintains a household which constitutes
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011