- 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