Michael Kevin and Vickie P. Boltinghouse - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          attached.”  No issue concerning the applicable tax year was                 
          raised in the notice.                                                       
               The present case can be distinguished from our opinions in             
          Cafarelli v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-265, and Loffer v.               
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-298.  In Cafarelli, the taxpayer, a           
          custodial parent, had completed a Form 8332 which was attached to           
          the noncustodial parent’s 1989 return.  The form was completed in           
          such a way that it applied to “ALL FUTURE YEARS”.  It was signed            
          and dated January 5, 1990, but it did not designate the first               
          year in which the release was to be applicable.  This Court found           
          that the form was not a “written declaration” under section                 
          152(e)(2) with respect to the year 1989.  We based this finding             
          on the ambiguity created by the form’s failure to indicate that             
          it was to apply to the year 1989, and the fact that the portion             
          of the form designated to apply to the “Current Year” was not               
          completed by the taxpayer.  Thus, to have applied the form to               
          1989 would have contradicted the terms appearing on the face of             
          the form:  The form was signed in 1990 and indicated that it was            
          to apply to “ALL FUTURE YEARS”.                                             
               In Loffer, the alleged “written declaration”--a signed                 
          divorce decree--created an ambiguity as to what taxable years               
          were applicable by limiting the entitlement to the deduction to             
          “so long as there are two children who can be claimed.”                     
          Furthermore, the decree did not state the name of the dependent             






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011