- 5 -
divorce decree grants Ms. Cato full custody of the three
children, she is considered their "custodial parent" under
section 152(e). Cafarelli v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-265.
Petitioner contends that because he was in compliance with
the terms of the divorce decree, as modified by the child support
order, he is entitled to the claimed deductions. Petitioner
claims that because he did not miss a monthly child support
payment in 1998 and he was current on his payments as required by
the child support order he is entitled to the deductions for
Shayla and Kevin. The Court, however, need not discuss the
merits of this argument because petitioner, as the noncustodial
parent, did not abide by the statutory requirements as explained
below.
The requirements of section 152(e) must be met regardless of
the language of the State court divorce decree. See Miller v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 184 (2000), affd. sub nom. Lovejoy v.
Commissioner, 293 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2002). Petitioner as the
"noncustodial parent", is allowed to claim Shayla and Kevin as
dependents only if one of the three statutory exceptions in
section 152(e) is met. Under these exceptions, the "noncustodial
parent" is treated as providing over half of a child's support
if: (1) Pursuant to section 152(e)(2), the custodial parent
signs a written declaration that such custodial parent will not
claim such child as a dependent, and the noncustodial parent
attaches such written declaration to the noncustodial parent's
return for the taxable year; (2) pursuant to section 152(e)(3),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011