- 12 -
dispute. See King v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 245, 253 (2003);
Bramante v. Commissioner, supra. Although we generally do not
look behind the notice of deficiency to examine the evidence used
or the propriety of the Commissioner’s motives or of the
administrative policy or procedure involved in making the
determinations, Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62
T.C. 324, 327 (1974), the stipulated facts indicate that not only
was petitioner current on his court ordered and monitored child
support obligation, but that petitioner would have had a
difficult time in procuring a properly signed Form 8332 from the
custodial parent.10 Therefore, without insisting that petitioner
further rely on the doubtful cooperation of the custodial parent,
we find that the attached settlement agreement satisfied the
written declaration requirement of section 152(e)(2).
As seen in the legislative history, underlying section
152(e)(2) is Congress’s recognition of the use of dependency
exemption deductions in divorce settlements. The legislative
history of section 152(e) illustrates how various literal
expressions have failed to implement the congressional intent of
10 Rule 91(a)(1) requires the parties to stipulate to the
fullest extent all matters not privileged that are relevant to
the case, regardless of whether such matters involve fact or
opinion or the application of the law to fact. Stipulations are
binding on the parties to the stipulation, unless the parties
agree otherwise or the Court relieves a party from the binding
effect “where justice requires.” Rule 91(e). Justice does not
require us to disregard any of the stipulations in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011