- 5 - the parent of an individual in order for that individual to be the taxpayer’s dependent under section 152(a)(9). Second, as to Dustin and Kristion, respondent argues that petitioner does not meet the requirements of any of the various provisions of section 152(e)(1)-(4). Section 152(e), which contains rules for divorced or separated parents treating one or the other as having provided over half a child’s support, is inapplicable in this case. Section 152(e)(1) is inapplicable because petitioner, not the children’s parents, provided over half of their support, as discussed below. Section 152(e)(2) is inapplicable because nothing in the record indicates, nor does respondent even suggest, that Mendy signed a written declaration releasing her claim to the exemptions in favor of the biological father. Section 152(e)(3) is inapplicable because petitioner provided over half of the children’s support, making a multiple support agreement impossible. See sec. 152(c)(1). Finally, section 152(e)(4) is inapplicable because there is no qualified pre-1985 instrument involved in this case. Respondent’s third and final argument is that petitioner did not provide over half of the support for Dustin, Kristion, or Brittany. However, the four witnesses at trial testified that petitioner contributed more than half of such support, and we find that the evidence supports this testimony. Petitioner had available to contribute to the payment of the children’s expensesPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011