Jeffrey R. King and Sabrina M. King - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          applies only to parents who are married but who live apart.7                
          Although we find the statute unambiguous, we have examined the              
          legislative history, and we disagree with respondent regarding              
          its import.                                                                 
               Section 152(e) was amended in 1984 to add current paragraphs           
          (1)(A)(iii) and (2).  Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-            
          369, sec. 423(a), 98 Stat. 799.  Before the 1984 amendment, the             
          special support test applied only to parents who were divorced or           
          separated under a written separation agreement.8  The conference            
          report accompanying the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 states that           
          the special support test was being extended to parents living               
          apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calendar year.           
          H. Conf. Rept. 98-861, at 1118-1119 (1984), 1984-3 C.B. (Vol. 2)            
          1, 372-373.9  The reason for the change was to resolve disputes             



               7Respondent also contends that similar “live apart” language           
          used in other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code indicates             
          that the special support test was meant to apply only to parents            
          who have married each other.  Respondent bases his contention on            
          a statement in the House bill that certain provisions were being            
          amended to provide consistent rules among various interrelated              
          sections concerning family status of individuals living apart.              
          H. Rept. 98-432 (Part II), at 1499 (1984).  We have reviewed the            
          provisions respondent cites, but we find that they provide                  
          unpersuasive support for respondent’s position, especially in               
          light of the plain meaning of sec. 152(e)(1).                               
               8This meant that under former sec. 152(e) “only parents                
          previously united in marriage [came] within its ambit.”  Radin v.           
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-348.                                          
               9The conference agreement provides a brief discussion of the           
          House bill and states that there was no Senate amendment.  The              
          conference agreement followed the House bill.  H. Conf. Rept. 98-           
          861, at 1118-1119 (1984), 1984-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 372-373.                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011