- 8 -
section 152(e). Furthermore, assuming arguendo that custody was
split exactly evenly, petitioner has failed to show that he
provided over half of Robert’s support during 1998; petitioner
therefore would not be entitled to the dependency exemption
deduction pursuant to the general rule of section 152(a).
Because petitioner is not entitled to the dependency
exemption deduction, he also is not entitled to the child tax
credit. Sec. 24(c)(1)(A). Finally, because petitioner has
failed to establish that Robert resided with him for more than
half of 1998, he is not entitled to head of household filing
status. Sec. 2(b)(1).
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011