Dawson Craig Lane - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          sioner, 116 T.C. 60, 62 (2001).                                             
               Respondent summarily disallowed the dependency exemptions              
          claimed for petitioner’s two sons in Form 1040A for 2001.  That             
          was because (1) section 151(e) provides that no dependency                  
          exemption is allowable “with respect to any individual unless the           
          TIN of such individual is included on the return claiming the               
          exemption”, and (2) Form 1040A for 2001 that petitioner filed               
          stated “NONE” after the name of each of petitioner’s sons in the            
          space provided in that form for “Dependent’s social security                
          number”.  Respondent assessed the tax for petitioner’s taxable              
          year 2001 resulting from (1) respondent’s disallowance of the               
          personal exemptions claimed in Form 1040A for 2001 for peti-                
          tioner’s sons and (2) respondent’s allowance of a $600 rate                 
          reduction credit.  Respondent’s assessment of that tax was proper           
          under section 6213(b)(1) and (g)(2)(H).5  That is because such              
          assessment arose out of a “mathematical or clerical error”.  See            
          sec. 6213(b)(1), (g)(2)(H).                                                 
               The definition of the term “mathematical or clerical error”            
          includes “an omission of a correct TIN required under * * *                 
          section 151 (relating to allowance of deductions for personal               
          exemptions)”.  Sec. 6213(g)(2)(H).  The term “TIN” means “the               
          identifying number assigned to a person under section 6109."                

               5Respondent’s summary determination that petitioner is                 
          liable for 2001 for the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(2)               
          also was proper.  See secs. 6665, 6213(b).                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011