- 11 -
counsel concluded that governmental agencies and/or Mrs. Nguyen
paid more than one-half of the household expenses and that, as a
consequence, petitioner did not qualify for either head-of-
household filing status or a dependency exemption for her son.
On the other hand, respondent’s counsel concluded that for
purposes of the earned income credit, Hai was the qualifying
child of both Mrs. Nguyen and petitioner. Because respondent’s
counsel was not able to establish that Mrs. Nguyen received
earned income in 1999, respondent’s counsel concluded that under
the “tie-breaker” rule of section 32(c)(1)(C), petitioner was the
individual who was entitled to the earned income credit.
By letter to petitioner’s counsel dated June 13, 2001,
respondent’s counsel stated that “this case should be quickly
resolved.” Respondent’s counsel then unconditionally conceded
the earned income credit issue and proposed that petitioner
concede the filing status, standard deduction, and dependency
exemption issues.
By letter dated June 19, 2001, petitioner’s counsel accepted
respondent’s concession of the earned income credit issue but was
noncommittal regarding the other issues, stating that “I concur
that this case can be quickly resolved when all of the facts are
determined.”
On June 26, 2001, respondent filed with the Court a notice
of objection to petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011