- 8 -
(10th Cir. 1986); Neal v. Commissioner, supra; Nieto v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-296.
Unfortunately, regardless of what is stated in the State
divorce decree, the law is clear that petitioner husband is
entitled to the child dependency exemption in 2001 only if he
complied with the provisions of section 152(e)(2). Petitioner
husband has failed in this regard. It follows, therefore, that
the exception set forth in section 152(e)(2) does not apply and
that the general rule of section 152(e)(1) does apply.
Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to deduct a dependency
exemption for BMC for 2001. Sec. 152(e)(1); Miller v.
Commissioner, supra. Respondent’s determination on this issue is
sustained.
B. Child Tax Credit
Section 24(a) authorizes a child tax credit with respect to
each “qualifying child” of the taxpayer. The term “qualifying
child” is defined in section 24(c). As relevant here, a
“qualifying child” means an individual with respect to whom the
taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151. Sec.
24(c)(1)(A).
We have already held that petitioner husband is not entitled
to a deduction under section 151 for a dependency exemption for
BMC. Accordingly, BMC is not considered a “qualifying child”
within the meaning of section 24(c). It follows, therefore, that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011