- 7 -
minimum, a qualifying child must have the same principal place of
abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half the taxpayer’s
taxable year.5 Sec. 32(c)(3)(A)(ii).
Calesa lived with Ms. Harrell for the majority of 1997. She
spent weekends and some holidays at petitioner’s home. Calesa
did not share the same principal abode as petitioner for more
than one-half of 1997, let alone the entire year. Accordingly,
petitioner is not entitled to the EIC for 1997 on the ground of
having a qualifying child under section 32(c)(3).
A taxpayer with no qualifying children is eligible for the
EIC subject to, among other things, the phaseout limitations of
section 32(a)(2). Briggsdaniels v. Commissioner, supra. For
1997, the EIC is completely phased out under section 32(a) for a
taxpayer with no qualifying children if the taxpayer’s earned
income and adjusted gross income is over $9,769. Id.
Petitioner’s earned income and adjusted gross income for 1997 was
$11,847. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to claim an EIC
for 1997.
Conclusion
Petitioner testified that Calesa is his daughter “in all the
5 An “eligible foster child”, however, must have the same
principal place of abode as the taxpayer for the taxpayer’s
entire taxable year. Sec. 32(c)(3)(B)(iii)(II). An eligible
foster child is an individual, other than a son or daughter of
the taxpayer, a descendant of a son or daughter of the taxpayer,
or a stepson or stepdaughter of the taxpayer, who the taxpayer
cares for as the taxpayer’s own child. Sec. 32(c)(3)(B)(iii).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011