- 17 -
Regs., provides: “In the event of so-called ‘split’ custody,
* * * ‘custody’ will be deemed to be with the parent who, as
between both parents, has the physical custody of the child for
the greater portion of the calendar year.”
Petitioner failed to prove that, during 1995, Meagan
received over half of her support from one or both of her
parents. Even if we were to assume that she did, however,
petitioner failed to prove that, as between him and Ms. Hodson,
he had physical custody of her for the greater portion of the
year.5
Petitioner is not entitled to a deduction for the exemption
amount with respect to Meagan for 1995.
C. Vanguard Distribution
Petitioner failed to report the Vanguard distribution
($23,192.18) as an item of gross income on the 1995 Form 1040.
By the supplemental final judgment, the State Court found that
petitioner and Ms. Hodson had stipulated (the stipulation) that
Ms. Hodson would receive “the amount of $55,400 from * * *
[petitioner’s] Capital Accumulation Plan (T-CAP) or from * * *
[his] ESOP, whichever is appropriate, * * * in full settlement of
5 Sec. 152(e)(2) provides a means by which the custodial
parent may permit the noncustodial parent to claim the child as a
dependent for the year. However, petitioner does not claim that
Ms. Hodson signed a written declaration that she would not claim
Meagan as a dependent on her return, nor is there evidence that
he attached any such written declaration to his return as
required by sec. 152(e)(2).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011