- 7 -
Petitioner husband further reasons that he was current with his
support payments throughout the year in issue and at the end of
such year. Therefore, petitioner husband concludes that he has
the right to claim BMC as a dependent for Federal and State
income tax purposes for taxable year 2001.
The divorce decree in the present case was not signed by the
custodial parent. Section 152(e)(2) expressly provides that the
noncustodial parent may claim the dependency exemption deduction
for a child only if “the custodial parent signs the written
declaration”. Complying with the signature requirement of
152(e)(2) is critical to the successful release of the dependency
exemption. See Neal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-97; Paulson
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-560; White v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-438.
Language in a divorce decree purportedly giving a taxpayer
the right to an exemption does not entitle the taxpayer to the
exemption if the signature requirement of section 152(e)(2) is
not met. Miller v. Commissioner, supra. Although the divorce
decree, by and through its own terms, provides that petitioner
husband is entitled to the dependency exemption for BMC, it is
well settled that State courts by their decisions cannot
determine issues of Federal tax law. See Commissioner v. Tower,
327 U.S. 280 (1946); Kenfield v. United States, 783 F.2d 966
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011