- 6 -
To summarize: The general rule of section 152(e)(1) serves
to assign the dependency exemption for a child to the custodial
parent. Therefore, because petitioner was the noncustodial
parent, he is not entitled to claim Christopher as his dependent.
Id. In view of the foregoing, we sustain respondent’s
determination on this issue.
B. Filing Status
As relevant herein, an individual qualifies as a head of
household if the individual is not married at the close of the
taxable year and maintains as his or her home a household that
constitutes for more than one-half of the taxable year, the
principal place of abode of a child of the taxpayer. See sec.
2(b)(1)(A)(i).
Although petitioner maintained a residence for Christopher
that may have been Christopher’s place of abode during his son’s
visits to Chicago, the record does not demonstrate that
petitioner’s residence was Christopher’s principal place of abode
for more than half of the year. Thus, in 1999, Christopher spent
only about 146 days with petitioner in Chicago, a period that is
considerably less than half of the year.6 In contrast,
Christopher spent more than half of the year with his mother in
6 Jan. 1, 1999 through Mar. 3, 1999 constitutes 62 days,
and June 13, 1999 through Sept. 5, 1999 constitutes 84 days.
Together, these two periods equal 146 days, which is 37 days
short of being more than half of the year.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011