Early Robertson, Jr. - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
                    THE COURT:  All right.  So if we took the year                    
               1993 and added four years to it, then you would say,                   
               you got her in December ‘93.  Was that what you said?                  
                    MR. ROBERTSON:  December ‘93 was when it was filed                
               in the courthouse.                                                     
                    THE COURT:  So at most that would be like, maybe                  
               ‘93, but ‘94, ‘95, ‘96, and ‘97, but ‘98 and ‘99, she                  
               wouldn’t have lived in your house any more.  Is that--                 
                    MR. ROBERTSON:  That’s true.                                      
               Through the foregoing colloquy, petitioner has raised a                
          question of material fact with respect to his entitlement to a              
          dependent exemption deduction for his daughter for 1997, as well            
          as to other potential correlative changes such as head of                   
          household filing status.3  See secs. 2, 151, 152.  Accordingly,             
          we will deny respondent’s motion for summary judgment as it                 
          relates to 1997.  At the same time, as regards 1998 and 1999,               
          petitioner appears to have conceded that the criteria for such a            
          deduction would not have been met.  He thus has failed properly             
          to oppose respondent’s motion for summary judgment for 1998 and             
          1999, at least insofar as the issue of underlying liability is              
               C.  1995, 1996, 1998, and 1999--Abuse of Discretion                    
               In light of our conclusions above regarding challenges to              
          the underlying liability, disposition of the remainder of                   
          respondent’s motion rests on whether petitioner has, for 1995,              

               3 On the basis of the limited factual record available to              
          the Court, there may be merit to these contentions.                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011