Jorge Gallardo - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         

          support in the divorce decree.  The divorce decree further                  
          required petitioner to maintain medical and dental insurance for            
          his children.  No evidence was presented at trial as to whether             
          petitioner fulfilled this portion of the decree.                            
               Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 2001                  
          claiming head-of-household filing status and one dependency                 
          exemption deduction for his youngest child, Richard Gallardo.  He           
          claimed an earned income credit of $1,040, with his son Richard             
          Gallardo as the qualifying child, a child care credit of $600,              
          and a rate reduction credit under section 6428 in the amount of             
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed                     
          petitioner's head-of-household filing status and determined he              
          was married, filing separately.  Respondent also disallowed the             
          claimed dependency exemption deduction for Richard Gallardo,                
          disallowed the claimed earned income and child care credits, and            
          made a computational adjustment reducing the section 6428 rate              
          reduction credit from $465 to $300.  In his petition to this                
          Court, petitioner challenges these adjustments.3                            

               3    Sec. 7491, in some instances, places the burden of                
          proof on respondent.  However, under sec. 7491(a)(2)(A) and (B),            
          for the burden to shift, the taxpayer must comply with the                  
          substantiation and record-keeping requirements of the Internal              
          Revenue Code.  Petitioner presented no documentary evidence to              
          substantiate his claim for the dependency exemption; therefore,             
          the burden of proof did not shift to respondent.                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011