- 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