Eugene P. Mayeux - Page 6




                                        - 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 expenses           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011