- 4 - of the calendar year, section 152(e)(1) provides as a general rule that the child shall be treated as receiving over half of his or her support during the calendar year from the parent having custody for the greater portion of the calendar year (the custodial parent). Although there are exceptions to this general rule, none of the exceptions apply to the present case. See sec. 152(e)(2), (3), and (4). As relevant herein, section 1.152-4(b), Income Tax Regs., provides that when there is no decree or agreement establishing who has custody, the parent who has "physical custody of the child for the greater portion of the calendar year" will be deemed to be the custodial parent. There is no evidence in the record that there was a custody agreement between petitioner and Ms. Johnson. In the absence of a custody agreement, the Court must look to the division of physical custody. Id. Petitioner testified that his children spent the weekends with him and the weekdays with their mother. Because Ms. Johnson had physical custody of the children for a greater portion of the calendar year, she is deemed to be the custodial parent, not petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the dependency exemption deduction for either of the children. In light of the foregoing, the Court sustains respondent's determination on this issue.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011