- 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
concerned.
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