- 22 -
States, 783 F.2d 966 (10th Cir. 1986)); White v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-438 (citing with approval Commissioner v. Tower,
327 U.S. 280 (1946)).
Ms. Miller’s contention that she was entitled to claim the
dependency exemptions for her two children originally was based
on a section of the UDMA10 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". Colo. Rev.
Stat. sec. 14-10-115 (14.5) (1998). Ms. Miller contended that
Mr. Lovejoy did not comply with his child support obligations,
and, therefore, under the operative provisions of the UDMA, he
forfeited his right to the dependency exemptions arguably awarded
to him by the Permanent Orders. If we accepted Ms. Miller’s
statement of the issue, we would find ourselves in the middle of
a child support fight similar to that which Congress intended to
remove from the Federal courts when it amended section 152(e) in
1984. Instead, we have framed the issue as it should be framed:
Did the noncustodial parent do what was necessary to satisfy
section 152(e)(2)? Because we conclude that he has not done so
in this case, we need not decide the child support dispute
presented to us by Ms. Miller.11
10Colo. Rev. Stat. secs. 14-10-101 through 14-10-133 (1998).
11It is questionable whether State law can impose the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011