- 6 -
Permanent Orders to his 1993 and 1994 Federal income tax returns
to document his entitlement to the dependency exemptions.
Ms. Miller did not claim the dependency exemptions for the
children on her 1993 and 1994 Federal income tax returns or on an
amended return that she filed for 1993; however, Ms. Miller was
granted leave to amend her petition in this case prior to trial
to assert that she was entitled to claim the dependency
exemptions.4 Ms. Miller based her claim to the dependency
exemptions on a section of the Colorado Uniform Dissolution of
Marriage Act (UDMA), which provides: “A parent shall not be
entitled to claim a child as a dependent if he or she has not
paid all court-ordered child support for that year or if claiming
the child as a dependent would not result in any tax benefit.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. sec. 14-10-115 (14.5) (1998). Ms. Miller
alleged that Mr. Lovejoy had failed to pay all court-ordered
child support for 1993 and 1994 and that this failure entitled
her to the dependency exemptions under Colorado law.
At the conclusion of the trial, the parties were asked to
brief the issue of whether the Permanent Orders qualified as a
declaration signed by the custodial parent releasing the
4Respondent also was granted leave to amend his answer in
Mr. Lovejoy's case to assert protectively that Mr. Lovejoy was
not entitled to claim the dependency exemptions for the children
if Ms. Miller's claim to the dependency exemptions was upheld.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011