- 6 -
filing status. Sec. 2(b)(1). Petitioner did not argue that he
provided over half of the cost of maintaining the residence at
Shoreline Drive during the taxable year and no evidence in the
record would substantiate such a claim. Thus, we are able to
conclude that Ms. Pearson provided over half the cost of
maintaining the Shoreline Drive residence.
Petitioner testified that he maintained a separate residence
on “Britain Road” from 1994 until November 1997. Petitioner’s
testimony runs counter to the majority of the evidence in the
record. All of the written evidence presented indicates that, in
1997, Petitioner, Ms. Pearson, and Deont� resided together at the
Shoreline Drive residence. Petitioner failed to provide any
documentation of the existence of a residence aside from the one
on Shoreline Drive. Even if this Court finds that there was a
Britain Road residence, petitioner failed to show that it served
as the principal place of abode for either of his children. Id.
Petitioner has failed to convince this Court that he
provided over half the cost of maintaining a principal place of
abode for more than one-half of 1997 for either Deont� or Junior.
See sec. 1.2-2(d), Income Tax Regs. The Court thus holds that
petitioner is not entitled to head of household filing status.
Section 32(a)(1) allows an eligible individual an earned
income credit against the individual’s income tax liability.
Section 32(a)(2) and (b) limits the credit allowed based on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011