- 10 -
Because Mr. Beeghly had custody of Shelby for a greater
portion of 1997, petitioner is not considered Shelby’s custodial
parent for that year. Shelby, therefore, is not treated as
having received over half of her support from petitioner and does
not fit within the definition of a dependent for purposes of the
dependency exemption deduction here in dispute. It follows that
petitioner is not entitled to a dependency exemption deduction
for Shelby for 1997, and respondent’s determination disallowing
that deduction is sustained.
The order, through the schedule set forth therein, awards
physical custody of Shelby to petitioner for 182 days and to Mr.
Beeghly for 183 days during 1998. Because petitioner was not
awarded custody of Shelby for a greater portion of 1998, she is
not Shelby’s custodial parent for that year. As with 1997, it
follows that petitioner is not entitled to a dependency exemption
deduction for Shelby for 1998, and respondent’s determination in
this regard is sustained.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: May 25, 2011