- 5 -
greater portion of the year. That parent is referred to as the
“custodial parent”. Because the child is treated as having
received over half of his or her support from the custodial
parent, the custodial parent is generally entitled to a
dependency exemption deduction for the child regardless of the
amount of support the child actually received from that parent.
Petitioner claims that he, rather than Ms. Bonner, was his
son’s custodial parent for a greater portion of 1998 and is
therefore entitled to the dependency exemption deduction here in
dispute. In this regard, petitioner submitted a 1998 calendar
marked with an “F” on those days of the year when his son lived
with him, and an “M” on those days of the year when his son lived
with Ms. Bonner. Because petitioner’s calendar supports his
claim that his son lived with him for a greater portion of 1998,
petitioner maintains that he is entitled to the dependency
exemption deduction here in dispute. Although the calendar
demonstrates that petitioner’s son lived with petitioner for a
greater portion of 1998, we do not agree that petitioner should
be treated, for purposes of section 152(e), as his son’s
custodial parent for that year.
The word “custody” as used in section 152(e) is defined in
section 1.152-4(b), Income Tax Regs., which states:
(b) Custody. “Custody”, for purposes of this
section, will be determined by the terms of the most
recent decree of divorce or separate maintenance, or
subsequent custody decree, or, if none, a written
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011