- 15 - intimidation that caused her to sign the form under duress. See Bennett v. Coors Brewing Co., 189 F.3d 1221, 1231 (10th Cir. 1999); Furnish v. Commissioner, 262 F.2d 727, 733 (9th Cir. 1958), affg. in part and remanding in part Funk v. Commissioner, 29 T.C. 279 (1957); Brown v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 116, 119 (1968); Berger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-76. Additionally, it was Mrs. King’s duty to make the appropriate inquiries before she signed the Form 8332 permanently releasing her claim to exemption deductions for Monique, and we will not ignore the properly executed form because she now contends that she did not intend to release her claim for the years in issue. See, e.g., Rubin v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 200, 210-211 (1994); Bramante v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-228. Therefore, we find that Mrs. King validly released her claim to the exemption deductions for Monique for the years in issue and, as a result, the Kings are not entitled to dependency exemption deductions under section 151 for Monique for the years in issue. Accordingly, the Lopezes are entitled to the deductions for the years in issue. Decision will be entered under Rule 155 in docket No. 16596-02. Decision will be entered for petitioners in docket No. 16868-02.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: May 25, 2011