- 7 -
Congress enacted the 1999 Act; it is therefore part of the
history of the legislation. See Robinson v. Commissioner, 119
T.C. 44, 73 (2002).
The description of section 412(a) of the 1999 Act in the
Joint Committee Print at 326 indicates that placement by an
“authorized placement agency” should be interpreted as placement
“by an agency of a State or one of its political subdivisions or
by a tax-exempt child placement agency licensed by a State”. The
Joint Committee Print goes on to state that “some advocates” of
the new provision believe it would: “(1) reduce potential abuse
by tax cheats; (2) prevent unintentional errors by confused
taxpayers; and (3) provide better guidance to the IRS when
investigating questionable EIC claims.” According to the Joint
Committee Print, critics of the proposal attacked its adverse
effect on “legitimate family living arrangements” and stated that
it would not completely simplify the foster child definition,
because section 32(c)(3)(B)(iii)(II) retains the subjective test
that the individual must be cared for “as the taxpayer’s own
child”.
To summarize, other than what may be inferred from the
provision’s classification as a “Revenue-Increase” provision in
the Joint Committee Print, the main purposes of its enactment
appear to have been (1) to reduce unintentional errors by
taxpayers by simplifying to some extent the foster child
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011