- 4 -
four elements of section 32(c)(3)(A) with respect to petitioner.
However, respondent contends that section 32(c)(1)(C) precludes
petitioner from being an eligible individual with respect to
Treymaine for the year in issue.
Section 32(c)(1)(C) provides:
If 2 or more individuals would (but for this
subparagraph and after application of subparagraph (B))
be treated as eligible individuals with respect to the
same qualifying child for taxable years beginning in
the same calendar year, only the individual with the
highest adjusted gross income for such taxable years
shall be treated as an eligible individual with respect
to such qualifying child.
Respondent argues that Treymaine was a qualifying child with
respect to both petitioner and the grandmother for 1994.
Therefore, respondent contends that because the grandmother had
the higher adjusted gross income in 1994, section 32(c)(1)(C)
precludes petitioner from being an eligible individual with
respect to Treymaine for that year.
Petitioner observes that because the grandmother did not
identify Treymaine on her 1994 Federal income tax return as her
qualifying child, all four of the requirements of section
32(c)(3)(A) were not met by the grandmother. Consequently,
Treymaine is not a qualifying child with respect to the
grandmother. Thus, section 32(c)(1)(C) does not apply because
petitioner and the grandmother are not eligible individuals with
respect to the same qualifying child.
Respondent refers to the legislative history of the Omnibus
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011