- 6 -
determined that petitioner is not entitled to the dependency
exemption for Bradley because petitioner has not substantiated
that he had custody of the child for the greater portion of the
year in issue.
Section 151(a) and (c) allows a deduction for a dependent as
defined in section 152. A son or a daughter of the taxpayer,
over half of whose support during the calendar year is provided
for by the taxpayer, is a dependent. See sec. 152(a). However,
section 152(e)(1) further provides that if a child receives over
half of his support during the calendar year from his parents who
live apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calendar
year, and if the child is in the custody of one or both of his
parents for more than one-half of the calendar year, then the
child is treated as receiving over half of his support during the
calendar year from the parent having custody for a greater
portion of the calendar year. The regulations provide that "In
the event of so-called 'split' custody, or if neither a decree or
agreement establishes * * * custody, * * * 'custody' will be
deemed to be with the parent who * * * has the physical custody
of the child for the greater portion of the calendar year." Sec.
1.152-4(b), Income Tax Regs.
During the year at issue, petitioner and the mother of
Bradley did not reside together. However, petitioner has not
established that he alone, or that he and the mother of Bradley
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011