- 5 -
Except for temporary absences during vacation from school,
Kenesha lived in her grandmother’s house in Virginia as of May
1999 and for the remainder of 1999. We find that Kenesha’s
principal place of abode was Mrs. Chandler’s house in Virginia.
Although petitioner visited Kenesha in Virginia on weekends, we
find that his principal place of abode was in New Jersey.
Therefore, petitioner did not have the same principal place of
abode as Kenesha for more than one-half of 1999. Sec.
32(c)(3)(A)(ii). Kenesha, therefore, is not a qualifying child
with respect to petitioner under section 32(c)(3)(A), and
petitioner is not an eligible individual who has a qualifying
child under section 32(c)(1)(A)(i). Since petitioner does not
meet some of the aforementioned requirements, we need not address
the applicability of the tie-breaker rule under section
32(c)(1)(C).
However, petitioner satisfies the residency, age, and
dependency requirements of an eligible individual under section
32(c)(1)(A)(ii). Petitioner’s 1999 modified adjusted gross
income and earned income were $8,589, which is less than the
completed phaseout amount for 1999 of $10,200. Sec. 32(b); Rev.
Proc. 98-61, 1998-2 C.B. at 814. Therefore, we conclude that
petitioner is entitled to an EIC in an amount determined by using
the applicable credit percentage for an individual with no
qualifying children under section 32(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011