Thu Cuc Thi Huynh - Page 11




                                       - 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