- 5 - such child is in the custody of one or both of his parents for more than one-half of the calendar year. As these requirements are satisfied in the present case, the “child shall be treated, for purposes of subsection (a), as receiving over half of his support during the calendar year from the parent having custody for a greater portion of the calendar year (* * * referred to as the ‘custodial parent’)”, thus allowing the dependency exemption to be claimed by the custodial parent. Sec. 152(e)(1); see sec. 1.152-4(c), Income Tax Regs. “Custody” is determined by the terms of the most recent custody decree if there is one in effect. Sec. 1.152-4(b), Income Tax Regs. In this case, the order of custody, dated February 20, 1997,1 stated that Ms. Jeter and petitioner were awarded joint legal custody of the children; however, Ms. Jeter has the primary physical custody of the children. After taking into consideration petitioner’s visitation rights under the order of custody, it is clear that the children spent more than one- half of 1997 with Ms. Jeter. Therefore, Ms. Jeter is the custodial parent, and petitioner is the noncustodial parent for 1997. 1 For purposes of this case we accept the order for custody from the Division of Child Support, Circuit Court for Baltimore County, dated Feb. 20, 1997, as the most recent custody decree. No documents from the divorce in 1998 were received in the record.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011