- 7 -
It follows, therefore, that petitioner is entitled to the
dependency exemption only if he attached to his 1998 tax return a
written declaration as required under section 152(e)(2).
Petitioner contends that the decision, which he “thinks” he
attached to his 1998 tax return, constitutes a written
declaration under section 152(e)(2).
In Boltinghouse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-134, the
taxpayers attached to their return a copy of a separation
agreement, which was signed by both the custodial and
noncustodial parents. The Court held that the separation
agreement met the requirements of a written declaration under
section 152(e)(2) because it conformed in substance to Form 8332.
However, the decision in the present case is not analogous
to the separation agreement in Boltinghouse.
The decision in the present case was not signed by the
custodial parent. Section 152(e)(2) expressly provides that the
noncustodial parent may claim the dependency exemption for a
child only if “the custodial parent signs a written declaration”.
Complying with the signature requirement of 152(e)(2) is critical
to the successful release of the dependency exemption. See Neal
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-97; Paulson v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-560; White v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-438.
Language in a divorce decree purportedly giving a taxpayer
the right to an exemption does not entitle the taxpayer to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011