- 5 -
(III) has the same principal place of abode
as the taxpayer for the taxpayer’s entire taxable
year.
Respondent acknowledges that petitioner cares for the
children in question as his own and that those children and
petitioner have the same principal place of abode.
Petitioner acknowledges that the children have not been
“placed with the taxpayer by an authorized State agency”.
Indeed, there was an intimation at trial that petitioner and the
mother view as unfair the refusal or failure of the Mississippi
Department of Human Services to place the children with
petitioner as his foster children. The Court is left with the
impression that the Mississippi Department of Human Services has
not placed the children with petitioner as his foster children
because of the technical illegality of petitioner’s living
arrangement with the mother.
With the change in section 32(c)(3) that became effective
for the taxable year, petitioner took the return position, after
discussion with the mother, who is the sole custodial parent,
that she was authorized to “place” the children with petitioner
as his foster children. Although there is no documentary
evidence or testimony in the record that the mother has “placed”
any of the children with petitioner as their foster father, we
will assume for purpose of argument that she has attempted to do
so.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011