Princess Stephan Obriot - Page 10




                                        - 9 -                                         
          child care costs were incurred to care for Ayla, her qualifying             
          child, while petitioner worked.  As previously indicated, Ayla              
          qualifies as petitioner’s dependent for 1997 and 1998.  As a                
          result, petitioner is entitled to the full child care credits for           
          1997 and 1998.                                                              
               The final issue for decision is whether petitioner is                  
          entitled to earned income credits (EIC) for 1997 and 1998.  Under           
          section 32(a), a taxpayer may be allowed an EIC if she is an                
          eligible individual.  An eligible individual includes one who has           
          a qualifying child for the taxable year.  Sec. 32(c)(1)(A)(i).              
          Under section 32(c)(3)(B) a qualifying child includes a daughter            
          of the taxpayer or a descendant of a daughter.  The qualifying              
          child must have the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer           
          for more than one-half of the tax year, under section                       
          32(c)(3)(A)(ii), and the child must not have attained the age of            
          19, under section 32(c)(3)(C)(i).                                           
               Additionally, in order to receive the EIC, the taxpayer must           
          have identified the child on her return under the identification            
          rule of section 32(c)(3)(D), but need not have so identified the            
          child to be an eligible individual with respect to that                     
          qualifying child.  The identification rule under section                    
          32(c)(3)(D) is effective for both 1997 and 1998.3                           


               3  We previously discussed the identification rule and the             
          constitutionality of its retroactive amendment in Sutherland v.             
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011