- 7 -
exception set forth in section 152(e)(2) does not apply and that
the general rule of section 152(e)(1) does apply. Accordingly,
petitioner is not entitled to deductions for dependency
exemptions for Corey and Danan for 1998. Sec. 152(e)(1); Miller
v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner contends that he should be entitled to exemptions
for Corey and Danan because the Iowa State court awarded him the
right to claim such exemptions, at least if he was current on his
support obligation under the decree, which he was for 1998. The
short answer to petitioner’s contention is that a State court
cannot determine issues of Federal tax law. Miller v.
Commissioner, supra at 196. In this regard, section 152(e)
defines the manner in which a noncustodial parent may claim an
exemption for a child, and the provisions of that section
control.
Petitioner also contends that Ms. Ary would not release her
claim to exemptions for Corey and Danan by executing Form 8332 or
an equivalent declaration or statement. That may be so.
However, such refusal does not serve to change the express
requirements of section 152(e)(2). See Miller v. Commissioner,
supra at 196, where we stated:
The control over a child’s dependency exemption
conferred on the custodial parent by section 152(e)(2)
was intended by Congress to simplify the process of
determining who is entitled to claim dependency
exemptions for children of a marriage. See H. Rept.
98-432 (Part 2), at 1498 (1984). To make section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011