- 5 -
should have had custody. He was asked to care for the children
when doctor or dentist appointments were required or when they
were sick during periods when they should have been in the
custody of Ms. Meier. In essence, petitioner had custody for the
weeks he was to have custody under the decree, plus he had
custody of the children for some of the weeks Ms. Meier was
supposed to take care of them. We are convinced on this record
that petitioner had custody of the children for the greater
portion of 1999. Under section 152(e) and section 1.152-4(b),
Income Tax Regs., the children are treated as having received
over one-half of their support from petitioner. Accordingly, we
hold that petitioner is entitled under sections 151(a) and 152(e)
to claim Kaislyn and Naleah as dependents for 1999.
We next consider whether petitioner is entitled to head of
household filing status for 1999. Respondent determined that
petitioner’s proper filing status for the taxable year at issue
is single.
Section 2(b), in relevant part, defines head of household as
an unmarried taxpayer who maintains as his home a household which
constitutes for more than one-half of such taxable year the
principal place of abode of a person who is an unmarried son or
daughter of the taxpayer. Sec. 2(b)(1)(A)(i). We have found
that petitioner had physical custody of Kaislyn and Naleah for
the greater portion of 1999. Accordingly, we hold that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011