- 10 -
32(c)(3)(A)(ii),(E). Here, school records and petitioner’s
testimony indicate that the children’s residence with their
mother was their principal place of abode. Although petitioner
apparently contends that the time during school mornings and
evenings and weekends that the children spent with petitioner
should be counted as additional periods of residency in
petitioner’s home, such contention is misplaced. While
commendable, the fact that the children stayed at petitioner’s
home for a few hours during the day does not establish
petitioner’s home as the children’s residence or principal place
of abode. See Jeter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-223, affd.
per curiam 26 Fed. Appx. 321 (4th Cir. 2002). Likewise, based on
the calendar provided by petitioner, the children spent only 150
days with petitioner. This amount is less than one-half of the
2001 taxable year. Since petitioner failed to satisfy the
residency requirement of section 32, neither of petitioner’s
children is considered a qualifying child.
Nonetheless, individuals who do not have any qualifying
children may also be eligible under section 32(a)(2) for an
earned income credit, subject to, among other things, phaseout
limitations. Merriweather v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-226;
Briggsdaniels v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-105, affd. 2 Fed.
Appx. 848 (9th Cir. 2001). An individual who does not have any
qualifying children is eligible for an earned income credit if:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011