- 6 -
For 1997, petitioner’s modified adjusted gross income was less
than that of Mr. Pancake. If we apply the section 32(c)(1)(C) tie-
breaker rule, Mr. Pancake, and not petitioner, is the individual
eligible to claim the earned income credit with respect to Christina
and Mitchell. See, e.g., Jackson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-
54.
Petitioner maintains that here the section 32(c)(1)(C) tie-
breaker rule is inapplicable on the basis that Mr. Pancake failed to
identify Christina and Mitchell as his qualifying children on his
1997 return. In this regard, as explained infra, petitioner
erroneously relies upon the definition of a qualifying child as it
existed before the 1998 amendment.
As originally enacted in 1990, section 32(c)(3)(A)2 defined a
2 Former sec. 32(c)(3)(A) provided as follows:
(A) In general.–-The term “qualifying child”
means, with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable
year, an individual–-
(i) who bears a relationship to the
taxpayer described in subparagraph (B),
(ii) except as provided in subparagraph
(B)(iii), who has the same principal place of
abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half
of such taxable year,
(iii) who meets the age requirements of
subparagraph (C), and
(iv) with respect to whom the taxpayer
meets the identification requirements of
subparagraph (D). [Emphasis added.]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011