Keith Chiosie - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         

               Petitioner and Mrs. Chiosie filed separate Federal income              
          tax returns for 1997.                                                       
               In filing his 1997 return, petitioner utilized Form 1040,              
          and he listed his address as that of the Monroe residence.                  
          Petitioner specified his filing status as head of household, and            
          he claimed dependency exemptions for two of his three sons.                 
          Petitioner also claimed an earned income credit in the amount of            
          $3,310.                                                                     
               Respondent began an examination of petitioner’s 1997 return            
          on June 30, 1998.  Thereafter, in a notice of deficiency dated              
          December 1, 1998, respondent determined that petitioner’s proper            
          filing status was married filing separately and not head of                 
          household.  Respondent also disallowed the earned income credit             
          claimed by petitioner.2  Finally, respondent determined that                
          petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under                 
          section 6662(a) for negligence or intentional disregard of rules            
          or regulations.                                                             
                                       OPINION                                        
          Issue 1.  Petitioner’s Filing Status                                        
               We begin with petitioner’s filing status.  Section 2(b)                
          defines head of household.  As relevant herein, section 2(b)(1)             
          provides that an individual shall be considered a head of a                 


          2  Respondent did not disallow the two dependency deductions                
          claimed by petitioner.                                                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011