- 16 -
Petitioner contends that, with regard to his son Stefan, the
housing arrangement complied with the requirements as set out in
the regulations. For petitioner's residence to be considered his
son's principal place of abode, petitioner must meet the follow-
ing three requirements: (1) The special circumstances or neces-
sity of the absence must be a type intended by the statute;
(2) it was reasonable for petitioner to assume his son, if ever
able, would return to the household, and (3) petitioner main-
tained the household in anticipation of his return. See Manning
v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 838, 840-841 (1979). The evidence does
not support petitioner's contentions.
Petitioner's son, Stefan, spent the entire year in college.
He did not stay with petitioner at Mr. Boswell's house for even
one night during 1990. Mr. Boswell's home is a three-bedroom
house. The owner, Mr. Boswell, slept in one bedroom, petitioner
slept in the second, and the third room had a sofa and a shelf of
books but no bed. Mr. Boswell credibly testified that he and
petitioner never discussed having any of his children stay at the
house, and Mr. Boswell stated: "I wouldn't have had the room for
them [petitioner's children] anyway." On brief, petitioner
candidly admitted that the only reason for one of his children to
stay with him would be in the event of an emergency. Ultimately,
Stefan graduated from college in 1991, and after graduation he
continued to live in Arkansas.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011