Evans A. Mbachu - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         

          money to his wife for payment of her house rent, which petitioner           
          contends constituted his providing "accommodations" to the                  
          children.  Petitioner also paid for the children's "fillings",              
          which the Court assumes was for their dental expenses.  The two             
          children were 13 and 14 years of age during the year 2002.                  
               With respect to the first issue, the claimed head of                   
          household filing status, section 2(b) defines a head of household           
          as an individual taxpayer who (1) is not married at the close of            
          the taxable year and (2) maintains as his home a household which            
          constitutes the principal place of abode for more than one-half             
          of the taxable year of a stepson or stepdaughter of the taxpayer.           
          Sec. 2(b)(1)(A)(i).  Although petitioner was married and not                
          divorced at the close of the tax year in question, section 2(c)             
          provides that an individual shall be treated as not married at              
          the close of the taxable year if such individual is so treated              
          under section 7703(b).  Under section 7703(b)(3), a taxpayer who            
          maintains as his home a household which constitutes the principal           
          place of abode for more than one-half the year of a child for               
          whom he is entitled to a deduction under section 151 is deemed to           
          be "not married" if, during the last 6 months of the year at                
          issue, his spouse did not reside with him.                                  
               Petitioner's spouse did not live with him during the last 6            
          months of the year 2002.  Respondent agrees that petitioner was             
          entitled to the dependency exemption deductions for the two                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011