- 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