Ricky C. Hutchinson and Tammy L. McNichol - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         

               Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,825 in petitioners’           
          Federal income tax for 1999.  The sole issue for decision is                
          whether Tammy L. McNichol (petitioner) released to her former               
          spouse, John F. McNichol (Mr. McNichol), under section 152(e)(2),           
          for the year 1999, the dependency exemption deductions for                  
          petitioner and Mr. McNichol’s two children.                                 
               Some of the facts were stipulated, and those facts, with the           
          accompanying exhibits are so found and are made part hereof.  At            
          the time the petition was filed, petitioners were legal residents           
          of Gladwin, Michigan.                                                       
               Petitioner and Mr. McNichol were formerly married to each              
          other and were divorced in November 1990.  Two daughters were               
          born of that marriage in 1987 and 1989.  Petitioner thereafter              
          married Ricky C. Hutchinson.  They filed a joint Federal income             
          tax return for 1999.  Mr. McNichol, petitioner’s former spouse,             
          also remarried.                                                             
               On their joint Federal income tax return for 1999,                     
          petitioners claimed the two daughters as dependents.  Likewise,             
          Mr. McNichol and his spouse claimed the two daughters as                    
          dependents.  In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed             
          the two dependency exemption deductions claimed by petitioners              
          for her two daughters.2  The basis for the disallowance is                  

          2                                                                           
               The record is unclear whether respondent also disallowed the           
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011