- 8 -
exemption if the signature requirement of section 152(e)(2) is
not met. Miller v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 184 (2000), affd. sub
nom. Lovejoy v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2002).
Although the decision, by and through the TAX BENEFITS provision,
provides that petitioner is entitled to the dependency exemptions
for Everton and Aldwyn, it is well settled that State courts, by
their decisions, cannot determine issues of Federal tax law. See
Commissioner v. Tower, 327 U.S. 280 (1946); Kenfield v. United
States, 783 F.2d 966 (10th Cir. 1986); Nieto v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1992-296. Unfortunately, regardless of what is stated
in the State court decision, the law is clear that petitioner is
entitled to the child dependency exemptions in 1998 only if he
complied with the provisions of section 152(e)(2). Petitioner
has failed in this regard. It follows, therefore, that the
exception set forth in section 152(e)(2) does not apply and that
the general rule of section 152(e)(1) does apply. Accordingly,
petitioner is not entitled to deductions for dependency
exemptions for Everton and Aldwyn. Sec. 152(e)(1); Miller v.
Commissioner, supra. Respondent’s determination on this issue is
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011