Michael Kevin and Vickie P. Boltinghouse - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
               The sole issue for decision is whether petitioners are                 
          entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for a daughter of              
          petitioner Michael Kevin Boltinghouse (petitioner).  If                     
          petitioners are so entitled, respondent concedes that petitioners           
          also are entitled to a child tax credit for her.1                           
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are                      
          incorporated herein by this reference.  Petitioners resided in              
          Durham, North Carolina, on the date the petition was filed in               
          this case.                                                                  
               Petitioner and his former wife, Lisa Rogers, entered into a            
          separation agreement prior to the finalization of their divorce             
          in 1991.  The agreement, a three page document, was signed by               
          both parties and was dated April 1, 1990.  The agreement provided           
          that Ms. Rogers was to have custody of both of their children,              
          Brandi and Brittany.  It further provided:                                  



          1Petitioners submitted an amended return to the Internal                    
          Revenue Service after the issuance of the statutory notice of               
          deficiency in this case.  In the amended return, in various                 
          papers filed with this Court, and at trial, petitioners argue               
          that they have zero Federal tax liability for the year in issue             
          (and that they made an overpayment for that year) based upon                
          frivolous arguments which do little more than recite law which is           
          irrelevant, taken completely out of context, or otherwise                   
          misapplied.  “We perceive no need to refute these arguments with            
          somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so                
          might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.”              
          Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), affg. an              
          Order of this Court.                                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011