- 5 -
Zamora Street–-was a household solely for Ms. Rodriguez and Tanya
during the taxable year. The record, however, does not support
petitioner’s contentions.
The extent of a “household” is not determined solely by
physical boundaries; instead we must look to all of the facts in
any particular case. Estate of Fleming v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1974-137. Tanya had unrestricted access to petitioner’s
household and had meals with Erica and Ivan during 2001.
Moreover, Ms. Rodriguez testified that she and the children lived
at the same address that petitioner claimed as his household. On
the basis of the record, we find that petitioner’s household
consisted of Ms. Rodriguez, the children, and petitioner, whether
it be at 4221 Zamora Street or the entire duplex.
Consequently, petitioner did not maintain such household
under section 2(b)(1), because he did not establish that he
furnished over half the cost of maintaining it for 2001.
Petitioner reported total income of $11,000, whereas Ms.
Rodriguez had wages of approximately $15,000. Accordingly, we
conclude that petitioner is not entitled to head-of-household
filing status, and we sustain respondent’s determination on this
issue.
2. Dependency Exemption Deductions
A taxpayer may be entitled to a deduction of the exemption
amount for each dependent. Sec. 151(a), (c). The term
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011