- 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