Michael G. Correale - Page 7

                                                 - 7 -                                                   

            Dunn v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 361 (1978), affd. without published                            
            opinion 601 F.2d 599 (7th Cir. 1979) (holding, under similar                                 
            circumstances, that the taxpayer could not file as a single                                  
            individual because a temporary order issued in connection with a                             
            divorce proceeding did not render the taxpayer legally separated                             
            in a State that specifically provided by statute for legal                                   
            separations).                                                                                
                  As of the close of 1994, petitioner (1) was not divorced or                            
            legally separated from Mrs. Correale, (2) was not separated from                             
            Mrs. Correale pursuant to a written separation agreement, and (3)                            
            did not live apart from Mrs. Correale at all times during the                                
            last 6 months of that year.  Consequently section 152(e) is not                              
            applicable.  There being no dispute that petitioner has satisfied                            
            all of the other requirements necessary for the deductions under                             
            sections 151 and 152, see INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S.                            
            79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v.  Helvering, 292 U.S. 435,                             
            440 (1934), it follows, and we therefore hold, that petitioner is                            
            entitled to the dependency exemption deductions here in dispute.                             
                  Because of our holding we need not address petitioner's                                
            contention that he was not the noncustodial parent of Michael and                            
            Robert.                                                                                      
                  To reflect the foregoing,                                                              
                                                                   Decision will be                      
                                                             entered for petitioner.                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  

Last modified: May 25, 2011