- 7 -
was signed by both the custodial and noncustodial parents. The
separation agreement unconditionally granted the noncustodial
parent the dependency exemption. The Court held that the
separation agreement met the requirements of a written
declaration under section 152(e)(2) because it conformed in
substance to Form 8332.
Similar to the separation agreement in Boltinghouse v.
Commissioner, supra, petitioners contend that the order is signed
by the custodial parent. Simply because the custodial parent
signed the order, however, does not end the analysis. The order
must conform in substance to Form 8332.
Unlike the separation agreement in Boltinghouse v.
Commissioner, supra, the order at issue is conditional; namely,
that petitioner “is entitled to the income tax dependency
exemption for Shane Stone for so long as mother is unemployed, at
which time the issue shall be reviewed by the court.” (Emphasis
added.) Consequently, this language creates an ambiguity as to
what tax years are applicable by limiting petitioner’s
entitlement to the dependency exemption upon the fulfillment of a
condition; namely, that Laurie is unemployed.6 Moreover, this
conditional requirement suggests that Laurie’s unemployment
status may change year-to-year, such that petitioner’s
6 We note that petitioners presented no evidence to the
Court, and had no knowledge, whether Laurie was unemployed in
2001.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011