- 4 -
than one-half of such taxable year the principal place of abode
of a son. Sec. 2(b)(1)(A)(i). Petitioner did not prove that his
son had the same principal place of abode for more than one-half
of 2000. The son had the mother’s address on his school records.
Petitioner paid court-ordered child support for his son to
Francisca Alfaro, the mother. The Court gave petitioner an
additional 30 days to submit support for his position.
Petitioner failed to provide such support. Because we find that
Luis did not have the same principal place of abode as petitioner
for more than one-half the year in 2000, we find that petitioner
may not claim head of household filing status. We sustain
respondent’s determination as to this issue.
Petitioner claimed a child tax credit of $223 for 2000,
which respondent disallowed. Section 24(a) allows a child tax
credit for each qualifying child of the taxpayer. A “qualifying
child” means any individual if the taxpayer is allowed a
deduction under section 151 with respect to the individual for
the taxable year, the individual has not attained the age of 17
by the close of the year, and the individual bears a relationship
to the taxpayer described in section 32(c)(3)(B). Sec. 24(c).
In this case, because petitioner is not allowed a deduction under
section 151 for his son, the son is not a qualifying child.
Petitioner is not entitled to claim the child tax credit in 2000.
We sustain respondent’s determination as to this issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011