Pedro Pelayo-Zabalza - Page 5




                                        - 4 -                                         
               The record does not disclose whether Rita Pelayo filed an              
          income tax return for the taxable year 2000.4                               
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that                
          petitioner’s filing status was “married filing separately” rather           
          than “head of household”.  Respondent also determined that                  
          petitioner was not entitled to either (1) deductions for                    
          dependency exemptions or (2) an earned income credit.  Respondent           
          also adjusted the amount of petitioner’s standard deduction to              
          correspond with the determined filing status.  Finally,                     
          respondent did not make any allowance for a child tax credit.               
          Discussion5                                                                 
               A.  Filing Status                                                      
               In order to qualify for “head of household” filing status,             
          an individual must satisfy several requirements.  One of those              
          requirements relates to the individual’s marital status.  Thus,             
          as relevant herein, section 2(b)(1) provides that “an individual            
          shall be considered a head of a household if, and only if, such             
          individual is not married at the close of his taxable year”.                




               4  Rita Pelayo did not sign petitioner’s Form 1040A, nor is            
          there any indication on such form that it is intended as a joint            
          return.  See sec. 6013(a).                                                  
               5 We decide the issues in this case without regard to the              
          burden of proof.  Accordingly, we need not decide whether the               
          general rule of sec. 7491(a)(1) is applicable in this case.  See            
          Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438 (2001).                                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011