- 4 -
It is axiomatic that in order to establish that petitioner
provided more than half of the support of the children, he must
establish the amount of the children’s total support and the
amount of support that he provided. Here, petitioner has
satisfied neither of these prerequisites. Even if we assume that
petitioner paid the utilities, he has not shown that that amount
constituted more than half of the children’s support. We sustain
respondent’s disallowance of the dependency exemption deductions.
EIC
Section 32(a) generally provides eligible individuals with
an EIC against their income tax liability. An “eligible
individual” is defined as any individual who has a “qualifying
child”. Sec. 32(c)(1)(A)(i). A qualifying child includes “an
eligible foster child of the taxpayer.” Sec.
32(c)(3)(B)(i)(III). As relevant herein, an eligible foster
child may be, inter alia, a descendant of a brother or sister of
the taxpayer. Sec. 32(c)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Section
32(c)(3)(B)(iii) further provides that the taxpayer must care for
the foster child “as the taxpayer’s own child” and the foster
child must have “the same principal place of abode as the
taxpayer for the taxpayer’s entire taxable year.” While there is
some doubt as to when the children came to the house in which
petitioner resided, we are willing to assume that he did share
the same abode with the children for the 2000 taxable year.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011