- 4 -
petitioner was not entitled to: (1) The claimed dependency
exemption deduction; (2) head-of-household filing status; and (3)
the claimed EIC.
Petitioner conceded during trial that he was married
throughout the entire year at issue and neither separated nor
divorced.
Discussion
The first issue for our consideration is whether petitioner
is entitled to the claimed dependency exemption deduction for
Oumou and Mariam as foster children.2 A taxpayer is allowed a
deduction for a dependent for whom the taxpayer has provided over
one-half of her support. Secs. 151(c)(1) and 152(a). A
dependent includes a daughter of a sister of the taxpayer under
section 152(a)(6) and an individual who, for the taxable year,
has as her principal place of abode the home of the taxpayer and
is a member of the taxpayer’s household under section 152(a)(9).
If the requirements of section 152(a)(9) and section 1.152-1,
Income Tax Regs., are satisfied with respect to a foster child,
that child shall be treated as a child of the taxpayer by blood.
Sec. 152(b)(2); sec. 1.152-2(c)(4), Income Tax Regs. For
2 Petitioner bears the burden of proof on all issues in
this case. Rule 142(a)(1). Sec. 7491 does not apply to shift
the burden of proof to respondent because petitioner has neither
alleged that sec. 7491 is applicable nor established that he
complied with the requirements of sec. 7491(a)(2)(A) and (B) to
substantiate items, maintain required records, and fully
cooperate with respondent’s reasonable requests.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011